Re: The evolutionary misfits that did not survive, and the question of where are their fossils? We have fossils for "successful" species that are now extinct; e.g., dinosaurs. Here are some issues that come to mind on this question:
1. It seems quite clear that dinosaurs were highly successful species.
2. Perhaps they would still be around, except for the fact of a catastrophic event of extraterrestrial origin; e.g., the accepted view that meteor impact(s) drastically affected global climate, and so rapidly transformed the earthly environment that dinosaurs could not readily adjust to the changed conditions. So they died off; we have their fossils so we know they did once exist.
3. Dinosaurs were evidently not “failed species.” Their extinction seemingly was not the result of genetic defect (see below), but of cosmic catastrophe. Yet Darwin, completely unaware of the modern science of genetics, still held that some species fail. An interesting question to ask is: What is the ratio of failed species to successful ones? How many “kluged experiments in natural selection” did there have to be to produce one successful species? I imagine that Darwin’s original theory would accommodate zillions of “failed experiments.” Theirs are the fossils I’d like to see.
It seems we only find fossils for species that once were successful. Where are the fossils of the unsuccessful ones? [I gather that was Ann Coulter’s actual question, as best as I can make it out without having closely followed her argument.] Or are we to suppose that unsuccessful species don’t live long enough to leave fossil evidence? That by itself might indicate a very serious “gap” in the fossil record: We have no evidence for the unsuccessful species. An “absence of evidence” has implications for the rigor of the theory….
4. Neo-Darwinism holds that evolution is essentially genetic evolution. Yet this was evidently not Charles Darwin’s view; for in his own time people knew nothing about the modern science of genetics; nobody even heard of the genome.
Darwin was an excellent scientist who was intimately aware of the state of science in virtually all fields at their state-of-the-art in his own lifetime. I understand, for instance, that he was aware of Mendel’s experiments. But Mendel’s experiments in genetics — he is called the “father of genetics” — did not go to issues of speciation, but to hybridization.
5. I think Darwin’s main legacy is the articulation of a plausible general narrative of evolution that subsequent science has used as a “backbone” on which to construct theories which Darwin himself could not have anticipated. What these theories have in common with the original Darwinist view is a belief that teleological considerations — purpose or goals in nature —ought never to enter into science. Instead, evolution is to be viewed as a spontaneous, yet quite purposeless development from basic chemistry and physics — at bottom, a kind of sui-generis bootstrapping evolving by happenstance, ultimately “guided” from the structure of the periodic table of the elements itself.
6. Seems pretty reductionist to me…. But hey, evidently lots of people warm to this view, for whatever reason.
Just food for thought. Must run away now — I’m starting my summer vacation today!!! I’ll probably be pretty scarce around here for a while. But I thank you, Dimensio, and all addressees of this post for your conversations and contributions to this thread.
As Neils Bohrs might surmise.. An absense of evidence says something.. and is/can be evidence in itself..
Wow placemarker
BB, my delight! I'm so glad you asked.
Of all species living today (ignoring stuff like bacteria, flatworms, sponges, horseshoe crabs and insects), sharks have probably been around the longest. There is evidence that modern sharks first appeared about 100 million years ago. Because virtually all other present-day species emerged later, it is highly likely -- perhaps even obvious -- that all fossils of now-extinct species are either: (a) non-transitional dead-ends; (b) transitional, but leading to eventual dead-ends; or (c) transitional and leading to species now living.
Links to useful information:
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Cuffey.
How do you know we have no fossils from the unsuccessful ones? Can you tell from looking at a fossil whether it was successful or unsuccessful?
If Darwin is wrong.
Then who created God.
See nobody can answer that question.
Never mind why I'm reading this so late. (Why am I reading it at all?) The dinosaurs were successful in a certain set of conditions, a very broad set. The non-avian ones failed the challenge presented when things changed dramatically. Thus, they were unsuccessful when they died out. Other life forms including mammals (which had been around for about the same length of time up to then) met that challenge better and basically inherited the Earth.
It's about genetics and it's about whether the environment--and thus the selection pressure--changes and how much and how soon and in what direction and how fast and whether any competing species adapts better.