Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,892,755 times
Reputation: 3767

Advertisements

First off, squall, my irritated and sarcsastic post was not ever aimed at you. It was aimed at Eusebius The Stubborn, who I often now refer to as Big-E,. He is the epitome of stubborn-headed intransigence. Show him a link and he won't read it, instead choosing to parrot his own brand of vast ignorance about... well.... everything technical.

You I give significantly more intellectual and curiosity credit to. You often at least try to answer our questions, while he simply offers up more silly and very made-up statements.

Second: as for "transitionals": in each and every organism's new generations; your children, mine, your neighbor's kids, and so on, there are (now easily detectable and therefore measurable), micro changes in our DNA sequence, i.e.: our genome. Such changes usually have minor or no effects, except possibly on shades of hair color, length of nose, etc.

You are, however caught in the trap of being told by the religious that we must find and must have some magic fossil or remnant find that is exactly part-way between, for example, the mammoth and the elephant, or between a chimp and a man. Otherwise they conveniently refuse to believe that the mechanisms of Evolution can occur and thereby produce a new species.

Sadly for that tired old deflection technique, it's no longer viable nor necessary, what with absolutely accurate and undeniable DNA genome mapping. I'd encourage you to at least try to read a bit of Richard Lenski's amazing 2008 publication abstract on the arrival & detection of an entirely new species in his lab through his careful monitoring of the original species' DNA map over 22 years (!!!) and well over 32,000 () individually retained DNA samples from EACH and EVERY generation! You can't just dismiss that sort of care and attention to detail, and as a result, it's both irrefutable and undeniable.

The result: all by itself, through chance mutations and a long time and lots of generations he was using a bacterium which reproduced rapidly and in the trillions of generational replicants) a new species arose which had a previous inability to utilize an ecological resource the original species was unable to access or utilize.

This then resulted in a subsequent cascade of additional evolutionary changes that were facilitated by that initial species change. I referred to this as Evolutionary Vectoring in my own genetic research, and it's now a known phenom, being logical and observable.

But back to Missing Links or Transitionals; such imaginary half-this, half-that creatures simply do not exist. What did happen is that a proto-ancestor to both the chimps and us endured the exact same micro-adaptations in their DNA that we, and all other living organisms, plant or animal, experience. This is through interbreeding, transcription errors, new DNA intros via viruses, genetic drift and so on. All known and established "mechanisms" that alter the genome.

(By the way, this is also why we don't necessarily see exact examples of our direct ancestors standing around today, as in: a chimp now just as he must have looked several million years ago, plus the differences in hominids from then to now.

All our intermediate "transitionals" went through their various phenotypic changes along the way! Just as you or I can now reasonably predict, given the pressures on each species to micro-adapt!)


Over time, these variant organisms may have experienced some minor advantage, or simply an ability to explore some novel utility of the existing resources, within their existing environment; a better ability to climb, to reach out for those previously out-of-reach pieces of fruit, or longer legs with better muscles to outrun a predator, and so on.

(Of course, they might also have suffered some negative change, and thus were less able to compete or out-reach, their direct improved competitors. What would you then "predict" would happen to that particular lineage, squall?)

In addition, the previous "version" of that organism could well have still existed and operated there, if the new, improved version did not particularly want to go after the exact same resources. The newer, improved version strikes out more and more on it's own, having found a niche it can better explore and utilize. There are often physical relocation factors that show up; the new version moves "up the mountain side", so to speak...

Over long times, aided by exponential growth when a positive mutation is experienced, that modified version expands it's influence, and through eventual genetic drift and other mechanisms, it becomes reproductively isolated; an interior brown grizzly bear becomes the maritime adapted white polar bear. They actually can interbreed, but do not, mostly because of behavioral differences of opinion (). In other species, the physical/biochemical differences prevent successful interbreeding.

In any event, slowly, over thousands of years and millions of "transitional" variants, and with tens of thousands of minor "trait" or phenotypical (externally obvious or functionally different) differences, you might have both of these two, and all the other in-between variants, all conveniently standing in the same meadow awaiting your polite inspection, but you'd be hard pressed to just sort them out instantly.

Yep; with DNA mapping or morphological comparisons (after we, let's say, kill one of each type and compare things like, oh... relative femur length, skull and jaw dimensional micro-changes, etc.) you could sort it out.

But you would not EVER find, for example, just one of the original Species ( the interior brown bear, for example) and then, as the only intermediate representative [the religiously mandated and required Transitional, or Missing Link species version...], as in: a half brown-half white, grolar bear, and then a lone all-white polar bear.

Just the three versions, all laid out for easy identification.

That is never going to happen, since, as I've hopefully carefully explained, that's just not how it works.

This is identical to requiring there be only this:

Image Detail for - http://pugetsoundblogs.com/peninsular-thinking/files/2011/02/FordPinto1971.jpg

as The Only Transitional, between this:

Image Detail for - http://www.automobilesreview.com/gallery/ford-model-t/ford-model-t-coupe-1920.jpg

and this:

Image Detail for - http://www.auto-smart-cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ford-gt-3.jpeg

Because, obviously, Ford's engineers designed and created literally tens of thousands of intermediate, evolving design "Missing Link" vehicles between the two! That and a lot of intervening years, in terms of automotive engineering. That engineering design and functional Evolution did occur; we know it, we have the obvious evidence, and we do not therefore demand to see some rear-half Ford Model T, grafted onto the front-end half of a 2012 Ford GT, to Prove this design process existed. Right? It's obvious.

But also, squall, remember that now, with DNA genome mapping, we have a far more accurate process with living organisms than just looking, as a metaphorical example, at annual Ford car design changes from 1912 through to 2012. Rather, we can see the exact and precise biochemical changes in specific DNA alleles which occurred with subsequent generations, to absolutely track the organic Evolution of a species history and lineage under review.

We also have the more traditional morphological (i.e.: functional, physical and visual) differences, plus information about where , when and how they lived (through ever-more accurate radio-decay and other new methods for dating, among all the other facts we can add into the overall bio-forensic toolbox...)

Get it now as regards Missing Links and Transitionals?

I sure hope so: this was a longish post. I also sincerely hope you take the time to read and understand it, and if you don't get some part of it, just ask!

Regards!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 08:57 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,926,084 times
Reputation: 1010
In other words, squall, rifleman doesn't have any proof we humans came from a single-celled critter which, by sheer magic (without any proof) turned eventually into a fish which, by sheer magic (without any proof) lost its swim suite, grew a neck, arms, legs, air breathing lungs, hair and larger brain to become a chimp which by sheer magic (without any proof) eventually became a human just like rifleman. LOL. In other words, evolution is faith-based. Even though there is no proof, you just have to have faith that that is how it all happened. Glad my ancestors didn't come the route rifleman did. Mine come from geniuses called Adam and Eve. And that explains rifleman's posts. LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 10:11 AM
 
570 posts, read 731,847 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
First off, squall, my irritated and sarcsastic post was not ever aimed at you. It was aimed at Eusebius The Stubborn, who I often now refer to as Big-E,. He is the epitome of stubborn-headed intransigence. Show him a link and he won't read it, instead choosing to parrot his own brand of vast ignorance about... well.... everything technical.

You I give significantly more intellectual and curiosity credit to. You often at least try to answer our questions, while he simply offers up more silly and very made-up statements.

Second: as for "transitionals": in each and every organism's new generations; your children, mine, your neighbor's kids, and so on, there are (now easily detectable and therefore measurable), micro changes in our DNA sequence, i.e.: our genome. Such changes usually have minor or no effects, except possibly on shades of hair color, length of nose, etc.

You are, however caught in the trap of being told by the religious that we must find and must have some magic fossil or remnant find that is exactly part-way between, for example, the mammoth and the elephant, or between a chimp and a man. Otherwise they conveniently refuse to believe that the mechanisms of Evolution can occur and thereby produce a new species.

Sadly for that tired old deflection technique, it's no longer viable nor necessary, what with absolutely accurate and undeniable DNA genome mapping. I'd encourage you to at least try to read a bit of Richard Lenski's amazing 2008 publication abstract on the arrival & detection of an entirely new species in his lab through his careful monitoring of the original species' DNA map over 22 years (!!!) and well over 32,000 () individually retained DNA samples from EACH and EVERY generation! You can't just dismiss that sort of care and attention to detail, and as a result, it's both irrefutable and undeniable.

The result: all by itself, through chance mutations and a long time and lots of generations he was using a bacterium which reproduced rapidly and in the trillions of generational replicants) a new species arose which had a previous inability to utilize an ecological resource the original species was unable to access or utilize.

This then resulted in a subsequent cascade of additional evolutionary changes that were facilitated by that initial species change. I referred to this as Evolutionary Vectoring in my own genetic research, and it's now a known phenom, being logical and observable.

But back to Missing Links or Transitionals; such imaginary half-this, half-that creatures simply do not exist. What did happen is that a proto-ancestor to both the chimps and us endured the exact same micro-adaptations in their DNA that we, and all other living organisms, plant or animal, experience. This is through interbreeding, transcription errors, new DNA intros via viruses, genetic drift and so on. All known and established "mechanisms" that alter the genome.

(By the way, this is also why we don't necessarily see exact examples of our direct ancestors standing around today, as in: a chimp now just as he must have looked several million years ago, plus the differences in hominids from then to now.

All our intermediate "transitionals" went through their various phenotypic changes along the way! Just as you or I can now reasonably predict, given the pressures on each species to micro-adapt!)

Over time, these variant organisms may have experienced some minor advantage, or simply an ability to explore some novel utility of the existing resources, within their existing environment; a better ability to climb, to reach out for those previously out-of-reach pieces of fruit, or longer legs with better muscles to outrun a predator, and so on.

(Of course, they might also have suffered some negative change, and thus were less able to compete or out-reach, their direct improved competitors. What would you then "predict" would happen to that particular lineage, squall?)

In addition, the previous "version" of that organism could well have still existed and operated there, if the new, improved version did not particularly want to go after the exact same resources. The newer, improved version strikes out more and more on it's own, having found a niche it can better explore and utilize. There are often physical relocation factors that show up; the new version moves "up the mountain side", so to speak...

Over long times, aided by exponential growth when a positive mutation is experienced, that modified version expands it's influence, and through eventual genetic drift and other mechanisms, it becomes reproductively isolated; an interior brown grizzly bear becomes the maritime adapted white polar bear. They actually can interbreed, but do not, mostly because of behavioral differences of opinion (). In other species, the physical/biochemical differences prevent successful interbreeding.

In any event, slowly, over thousands of years and millions of "transitional" variants, and with tens of thousands of minor "trait" or phenotypical (externally obvious or functionally different) differences, you might have both of these two, and all the other in-between variants, all conveniently standing in the same meadow awaiting your polite inspection, but you'd be hard pressed to just sort them out instantly.

Yep; with DNA mapping or morphological comparisons (after we, let's say, kill one of each type and compare things like, oh... relative femur length, skull and jaw dimensional micro-changes, etc.) you could sort it out.

But you would not EVER find, for example, just one of the original Species ( the interior brown bear, for example) and then, as the only intermediate representative [the religiously mandated and required Transitional, or Missing Link species version...], as in: a half brown-half white, grolar bear, and then a lone all-white polar bear.

Just the three versions, all laid out for easy identification.

That is never going to happen, since, as I've hopefully carefully explained, that's just not how it works.

This is identical to requiring there be only this:

Image Detail for - http://pugetsoundblogs.com/peninsular-thinking/files/2011/02/FordPinto1971.jpg

as The Only Transitional, between this:

Image Detail for - http://www.automobilesreview.com/gallery/ford-model-t/ford-model-t-coupe-1920.jpg

and this:

Image Detail for - http://www.auto-smart-cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ford-gt-3.jpeg

Because, obviously, Ford's engineers designed and created literally tens of thousands of intermediate, evolving design "Missing Link" vehicles between the two! That and a lot of intervening years, in terms of automotive engineering. That engineering design and functional Evolution did occur; we know it, we have the obvious evidence, and we do not therefore demand to see some rear-half Ford Model T, grafted onto the front-end half of a 2012 Ford GT, to Prove this design process existed. Right? It's obvious.

But also, squall, remember that now, with DNA genome mapping, we have a far more accurate process with living organisms than just looking, as a metaphorical example, at annual Ford car design changes from 1912 through to 2012. Rather, we can see the exact and precise biochemical changes in specific DNA alleles which occurred with subsequent generations, to absolutely track the organic Evolution of a species history and lineage under review.

We also have the more traditional morphological (i.e.: functional, physical and visual) differences, plus information about where , when and how they lived (through ever-more accurate radio-decay and other new methods for dating, among all the other facts we can add into the overall bio-forensic toolbox...)

Get it now as regards Missing Links and Transitionals?

I sure hope so: this was a longish post. I also sincerely hope you take the time to read and understand it, and if you don't get some part of it, just ask!

Regards!
I promise I will read it carefully ...
Probably I won't be able to reply tonight ...so ..
Any way ...
Thank you sir
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 10:32 AM
 
570 posts, read 731,847 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
Ive looked over your posts. You appear entirely unqualified to discuss scientific topics at all - let alone this one - to the point you even make up science yourself to suit yourself. The evolution you discuss and attack is a straw man version which no one beleives in and has nothing to do with the topic as it actually is. You are also massively underqualified to even be speaking the english language. And here all you are throwing at me here is the "watchmaker" argument again which has been done to death on this thread and many others. Change the record please.
Ok ..

Michael Jackson - They Don't Care About Us - YouTube

just kidding
All I asked for was your definition of the word design .
Take it easy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
First off - I agree with Rifleman.

"You I give significantly more intellectual and curiosity credit to. You often at least try to answer our questions,"

Eusebius simply posted a cartoon caricature of evolution which in fact (in very broad terms) would be quite feasible if it fitted the evidence - whic of course it doesn't. I repeat that I appreciate the efforts you are making with a tough subject and I can roll with the occasion attempt to make a bit of biology look like something that somebody deliberately painted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I am glad to know that ..
Thank you sir .

I understand ...
Take you your time .
But out of respect & ... just between you and me

There is no forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found nor there have ever been .

Not from what I see ...
Although I believe that the theory of evolution explains alot of what we see around us I find that new facts only makes us begin to reconsider some important aspects of the theory .
That reconsidering has already begin from the complexity that found in living cell .
While the origins of the cell and DNA are another question and I am not going to try to tell you that i can prove that it all 'evolved', I am content that you agree that evolution theory plus the evidence suggests that an evolutionary development of life is the way animals and plants got to where they are now from that first cell.

Also that 'picture - that has to be something boichemical - though i I've seen micrographs of bacilli before. Remember - pretty doesn't necessarily mean designed. Crystals and snowflakes are pretty.

Quote:
I would like to see it please .
Quote:
Take care
You got it. I put together a LOT of sources, leaving out references to all the fossils, but mentioning the 'signpost' ones and providing links to some particularly nice sites. This is just the tip of the iceberg so as to keep it simple for both of us.


The evolution of the eye

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?...
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

(Arq - that's a good theory, where's the evidence?)

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize.
biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose.

“Part of the trouble in tracing the evolution of the eye is that soft tissues don’t tend to fossilise. But the eye cavities in the braincase of these 400 million-year-old fossil fish were lined with a delicate layer of very thin bone. All the details of the nerve canals and muscle insertions inside the eye socket are preserved – the first definite fossil evidence demonstrating an intermediate stage in the evolution of our most complex sensory organ.

(But) The ancient limestone reefs exposed around Lake Burrinjuck in New South Wales have produced exceptionally well preserved placoderm specimens with the braincase intact,” Dr Young said.

The palaeobiologist discovered that unlike all living vertebrate animals – which includes everything from the jawless lamprey fish to humans – placoderms had a different arrangement of muscles and nerves supporting the eyeball – evidence of an “intermediate stage” between the evolution of jawless and jawed vertebrates.

Fresh Fossil Evidence Of Eye Forerunner Uncovered

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

various sources

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
Evolution of the Eye: Scientific American
Fresh Fossil Evidence Of Eye Forerunner Uncovered

I did of course come across Sean Pitman's sites questioning various aspects of evolution, including the eye. The questions are valid, but it's the old problem of finding something that can't be answered right now and pretending the discredits the whole theory. What's worrying is that Dr Pitman appears to use science that is actually wrong to make his case.

This site, while rather rude about ID does point up recent discoveries which show that some of the ID objections to the mechanism of evolution (including the processes of eye evolution) are being answered.

the evolution of retinal biochemistry is advancing quite nicely. Here is a review article from the same time as Behe’s article referenced above (1996-7), showing, for example, the branching pattern of relatedness in the amino acid structure of the opsin group of proteins used in vision. Here is a slightly more recent article from 2002 which reviews the phylogeny of visual protein systems.
The evidence is there, and growing, but creationists have never been bothered much by the evidence. Behe’s strategy is to just show how gee-whiz-complex the biochemistry of vision is then make the classic argument from personal incredulity. He fails to acknowledge, however, that such complexity evolves not so that the system can work at all but to make the system more sensitive, more specific, or more finely tuned. For example, a protein cascade can amplify the signal, allowing greater sensitivity to light. A less light-sensitive system can still work and provide a survival advantage.
NeuroLogica Blog » Another Gap Filled – More Evidence for Eye Evolution


You tube.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye



mammal to horse and human

Permian mammal origins

Early in the evolution of the therapsids arose a group called the cynodonts. These early mammal-like reptiles changed their teeth from being designed for catching and holding prey and then swallowing whole, to adding specialized teeth, including molars, designed for better mastication of food allowing for quicker digestion.

During the Permian period (c299 to 251 Million years ago), the cynodonts ("dog-toothed" reptiles) that descended from the earliest therapsids developed some distinctly mammalian characteristics. There's solid evidence that reptiles like Cynognathus and Thrinaxodon had fur, and they may also have had warm-blooded metabolisms and black, wet, dog-like noses. Cynognathus (Greek for "dog jaw") may even have given birth to live young, which by almost any measure would make it much closer to a mammal than to a reptile!

Triassic 250 to 200 million years ago)
the first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era
Mesozoic Mammal Pictures - Pictures of Mammals of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods
these synapsids (once called “mammal-like reptiles”) were very abundant in the early Triassic (world. They came in a wide variety of sizes and shapes, from large, cow-like dicynodonts (such as Lystrosaurus), to fanged, carnivorous gorgonopsians, to tiny insectivorous tritylodonts.

Therapsid Pictures - Pictures of Therapsid Reptiles

Jurassic 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago

Ask the average person (or high schooler) on the street, and he’ll guess that the first mammals didn't appear on the scene until after the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago-...: in fact, the first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era. ...These popular misconceptions about the mammals of the Mesozoic Era are easy to explain: scientifically speaking, dinosaurs tended to be very, very big and early mammals tended to be very, very small. With a couple of exceptions, the first mammals were tiny, inoffensive creatures, rarely more than a few inches long and a few ounces in weight. Thanks to their low profiles, these hard-to-see critters could feed on insects and small reptiles (which bigger raptors and tyrannosaurs tended to ignore), and they could also scurry up trees to avoid getting stomped on by larger ornithopods and sauropods.

Juramia sinensis, a shrew-like mammal, is the earliest placental mammal found to date. Mark A. Klingler/Carnegie Museum of Natural History

(see final notes. here's our 'common ancestor' - or the nearest thing.

This pointy-nosed shrew, a new fossil find from China, may be the earliest grandmother of all placental mammals, scientists report in a new study. Or perhaps she is the oldest great-aunt. Either way, it’s another big find this week in paleontology. The new shrew, Juramia sinensis, is the earliest known example of a placental mammal, which (unlike egg-laying monotremes and pouch-carrying marsupials) gives live birth.

Cretaceous circa 145.5 ± 4 to 65.5 ± 0.3 million years ago

When the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought. Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.
Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

Arq (While I haven't given the site origins of some very general information, this is so interesting, that I will (China agan! I do hope there isn't a factory in Shanghai manufacturing this stuff!)
Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs - life - 12 January 2005 - New Scientist

Cenozoic 65 million years ago

The mammals that came through the extinction seem to have been small rat-sized animals. They were a primitive form of ungulate. We know ungulates as hoofed animals such as horses, cows and such. But these early ungulates had claws. They rapidly expanded into every one of the niches left vacant by the departing dinosaurs
The KT Event set the stage for the Cenozoic Era Cenozoic Era that began 65 million years ago. As the dinosaurs perished at the end of the Cretaceous, the mammals took center stage. Even as mammals increased in numbers and diversity, From a geological perspective, it did not take long for mammals and birds to greatly diversify in the absence of the large reptiles that had dominated during the Mesozoic. Some birds grew larger than the average human. This group became known as the "terror birds," and were formidable predators. Mammals came to occupy almost every available niche (both marine and terrestrial), and some also grew very large, attaining sizes not seen in most of today's mammals.

Palaeocene 65.5 to 56 million years ago
Back in the northern hemisphere, another family of condylarths, the Phenacodontidae, may include the ancestors of a more familiar ungulate order: The odd-toed ungulates or Perissodactyla, represented by horses, rhinos and tapirs in the recent fauna. Historically, phenacodontids form the core of the Condylarthra. Well-preserved skeletons are known for the type genus Phenacodus, which is a good model of an ancestral ungulate with beginning adaptations for running.

Eocene about 52 mya (million years ago)
The earliest animal to bear recognizably horse-like anatomy was the Hyracotherium ("hyrax-like beast"). Its scientific name is derived from initial confusion over early partial fossils' relationship with living species: Richard Owen likened early Hyracotherium fossils "to a hare in one passage and to something between a hog and a hyrax in another".[12] A later name for the Hyracotherium, "eohippus" ("dawn horse"), is also popular, though the earlier name takes precedence due to scientific naming conventions.[13][14]

Hyracotherium lived in the Ypresian (early Eocene) . It was an animal approximately the size of a fox (250–450 mm in height), with a relatively short head and neck and a springy, arched back

The first artiodactyl fossils (including the rabbit-sized Diacodexis and Protodichobune) appear around 54 million years ago, in the early Eocene deposits of North America and Europe. These early even-toed ungulates had the full placental complement of low-crowned teeth (44 in total), four distinct toes on each foot, and no cranial appendages. Arising at a time when perissodactyls dominated the large herbivorous niches, artiodactyls remained relatively unspecialized until the Oligocene, when an explosive radiation is apparent (primarily in Eurasia). Link given as there is an illustration of the various kinds of mammals that deceloped from what might be considered one 'link' from to horses.

Order Cetartiodactyla - Even-toed ungulates (and whales)

Oligocene Following the terminal Eocene extinction which took out the Dinocerata, Archaeoceti, and most of the Titanotheres and creodonts, new kinds of mammals evolved and expanded in an evolutionary radiation of many new types. These included the prehistoric ancestors of dogs, cats, rhinoceroses (including both small slender running types and hippo-like semi-aquatic forms), and horses (such as Mesohippus,..)

Miocene 18 m years ago
Soon after Mesohippus celer and its very close relative Mesohippus westoni appeared, a similar animal called Miohippus assiniboiensis arose (approximately 36 My). This transition also occurred suddenly, but luckily a few transitional fossils have been found that link the two genera.

Pliocene

Horses

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.
Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).
Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).
Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).
Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.
Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).

Plastacene

VIII. One-Toed Horses (Late Miocene, Pliocene & Pleistocene)
The late merychippine species of this line, such as M. carrizoensis, were large horses with small side toes. They gave rise to at least 2 separate groups of horses that independently lost their side toes. This occurred as side ligaments developed around the fetlock to help stabilize the central toe during running. These one-toed horses include:
Pliohippus

Arose in middle Miocene (~15 My) as a three-toed horse. Gradual loss of the side toes is seen in Pliohippus through 3 successive strata of the early Pliocene. Pliohippus was very similar to Equus and until recently was thought to be the direct ancestor of Equus, except for two significant differences. First, Pliohippus's skull has deep facial fossae, whereas Equus has no facial fossae at all. Second, Pliohippus's teeth are strongly curved, and Equus's teeth are very straight. Though Pliohippus is obviously related to Equus, it probably didn't give rise to Equus.
Astrohippus

Astrohippus (~10My) was another one-toed horse that arose shortly after Pliohippus. Astrohippus also had large facial fossae, and was probably a descendent of Pliohippus.
Dinohippus

Finally, a third one-toed horse called Dinohippus (recently discovered) arose about 12 My. The exact ancestor of Dinohippus is not yet known (see Evander, 1989). The earliest known species are D. spectans, D. interpolatus, and D. leidyanus... Dinohippus was the most common horse in North America in the late Pliocene, and almost certainly gave rise to Equus. (Recall that Equus has very straight teeth and no fossae.)....

Throughout the end of the Pliocene, Dinohippus showed a gradual decrease in the facial fossae, straightening of the teeth, and other gradual changes, as Dinohippus smoothly graded into Equus. (Hulbert, 1989)


Equus

Finally we arrive at Equus (4 My), the genus of all modern equines. The first Equus were 13.2 hands tall (pony size), with a classic "horsey" body -- rigid spine, long neck, long legs, fused leg bones with no rotation, long nose, flexible muzzle, deep jaw. The brain was a bit larger than in early Dinohippus. Like Dinohippus, Equus was (and is) one-toed, with side ligaments that prevent twisting of the hoof, and has high-crowned, straight grazing teeth with strong crests lined with cement.

Members of Equus still retain the genes for making side toes. Usually these express themselves only as the vestigial "splint bones" of toes 2 and 4, around the large central 3rd toe. Very rarely, a modern Equus is born with small but fully-formed side toes. (see Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horses' Toes.)

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

And a final perceptive word from a christian website.

Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:

The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.

Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

Evidence for evolutionary change?

Of course, none of this disproves the series; it is merely that textbooks and museum displays are simplistic, portraying only selected trends. They do not reflect all the twists, turns, offshoots, and dead-ends that are evident in the fossil record. However, non-evolutionary scientists do not need to disprove it – because, in fact, the horse series is perfectly consistent with a non-evolutionary explanation of the development of life.

Horse Evolution


The primate line to humans


jurassic The earliest ancestor of most of today’s mammals has been discovered in northeast China, according to a paper in the latest issue of the journal Nature.
Named Juramaia sinensis, which means the “Jurassic mother from China,” the small, shrew-like animal spent some of its time in trees while dinosaurs thrived on land.

Cretaceous.The first mammal that paleontologists have identified as possessing primate-like characteristics was Purgatorius, a tiny, mouse-sized creature of the late Cretaceous period (just before the K/T Impact Event that rendered the dinosaurs extinct). Although it looked more like a tree shrew than a monkey or ape, Purgatorius had a very primate-like set of teeth, and it (or a close relative) may have spawned the more familiar primates of the Cenozoic Era.

The very earliest known primate fossils date back no further than the late Cretaceous (approx. 70 mya). But the absence of earlier primate fossils does not mean primates themselves were absent at an earlier date. For all terrestrial organisms the fossil record is next to nonexistent in the early and middle Cretaceous, a period of about sixty million years (beginning at about 144 mya). Moreover, because their tropical forest habitat is not conducive to the formation of fossils, primates are rarely preserved even in much more recent strata. Primates therefore could easily have existed long before the date corresponding to the earliest known primate fossils.

Michael Heads, (a Research Associate of the Buffalo Museum of Science,).. shows that the distribution ranges of primates and their nearest relatives, the tree shrews and the flying lemurs, conforms to a pattern that would be expected from their having evolved from a widespread ancestor. This ancestor could have evolved into the extinct Plesiadapiformes in north America and Eurasia, the primates in central-South America, Africa, India and south East Asia, and the tree shrews and flying lemurs in South East Asia.

Those fossils that actually are known strongly suggest primates—and therefore placental mammals—are much older than is generally believed. The first fact to consider in this connection is that monkey (cercopithecoid) fossils are known from the mid-Tertiary both of Africa and South America. At that time, South America had long been isolated from Africa by an ocean barrier

The very earliest known primate fossils date back no further than the late Cretaceous (approx. 70 mya). But the absence of earlier primate fossils does not mean primates themselves were absent at an earlier date. ..
Those fossils that actually are known strongly suggest primates—and therefore placental mammals—are much older than is generally believed. The first fact to consider in this connection is that monkey (cercopithecoid) fossils are known from the mid-Tertiary both of Africa and South America. At that time, South America had long been isolated from Africa by an ocean barrier
...The fact that stegosaurid/pangolins are known from Jurassic strata is also consistent with this conclusion. Some writers have suggested monkeys and lemurs “rafted” across the Atlantic Ocean on dead trees and debris. But this is implausible. Drifting at random, without provisions on an open ocean, a primate would face almost inevitable death....The earliest known specimen is a lemur molar from the late Cretaceous (or early Paleocene) of Montana. Extant lemurs are limited to Madagascar, an island that, according to Rabinowitz et al. (1983) has been isolated by an ocean barrier since at least 150 mya, that is, the late Jurassic. About latest time that a lemur could have walked from Madagascar to Laurasia was in the early Cretaceous — at about 170 mya. These facts suggest that primates predate 170 mya and, consequently, that origin of placental mammals occurred in (or prior to) the early Jurassic — a time when it is generally agreed that the latest synapsids were still in existence.

Miocene 18 m years ago

The Miocene hominoids are particularly interesting to students of human evolution because they reflect adaptive radiations that immediately preceded that of humans. Four families of Miocene apes are generally recognized: Proconsulidae, Oreopithecidae, Pliopithecidae, and Pongidae. Early Miocene hominoids are best known from East African Proconsulidae, whose species vary widely in size from about 3 kg to over 50 kg. Although teeth and fragmentary skeletal fossils are numerous, a remarkably complete skeleton of one species, Proconsul africanus, was found on Rusinga Island, Kenya.

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Pliocene Primate- hominids
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's.
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

Conclusion:-
so for horse evolution we get

Juramia sinensis, a shrew-like mammal, is the earliest placental mammal found to date. Mark A. Klingler/Carnegie Museum of Natural History

This pointy-nosed shrew, a new fossil find from China, may be the earliest grandmother of all placental mammals, scientists report in a new study. Or perhaps she is the oldest great-aunt. Either way, it’s another big find this week in paleontology. The new shrew, Juramia sinensis, is the earliest known example of a placental mammal, which (unlike egg-laying monotremes and pouch-carrying marsupials) gives live birth.

and for primates we get

The earliest ancestor of most of today’s mammals has been discovered in northeast China, according to a paper in the latest issue of the journal Nature.
Named Juramaia sinensis, which means the “Jurassic mother from China,” the small, shrew-like animal spent some of its time in trees while dinosaurs thrived on land.

So that is the nearest thing to a candidate for a common ancestor for the evolutionary branches that led to horses one way and to humans the other.

P.s I don't know if you were hinting above that there are no transitional fossils. However, I have a handy list. And i strongly suspect that a dozen or so have been added since then.


The fossils show a gradual development over time and you don't get Eocene mammals turning up in Permian deposits, erosional wash in from later rocks (which is easy to detect) aside.

the fossils also show what is not easy to see over short time -scales: transitional changes between forms. The theory of evolution predicted that there should be transitional and these have been found.
Archaeopteryx, famously, the horse sequence Eohippus to horse, Ambulocetus land mammal through sea forms to Basilaeosaurus (a mammal not a dinosaur) prehistoric whale and to present day whales.
And of course, the hominids from Australopithecus through a sequence of forms to man. Not a simple one line descent. There were many forms and related branches. The development of related side - branches is actually
evidence of the evolutionary process of hominids going on in different ways. There are no real 'missing links'. Those we have are markers, as it were, showing the way the development was going, not any specific direct ancestor.

Transitionals - Fish
Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).
Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).
Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).
Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 2008). Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.
Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).
Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).
Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms [i.e. the above animals] and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).

These creatures were related to the lungfish of their time, and almost certainly all had lungs themselves.

It would be a mistake to think that the first tetrapods moving on land needed limbs capable of bearing their full weight; legs sprawled to the side would be enough to move about with. One thing the above fossils seem to show is that legs first evolved for crawling over the bottom of the water; only later did their use on land become paramount.

Dinosaur - bird
Dinosaurs - birds

Most dinosaur-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).
Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009).
Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.
Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).
Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).
Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.

As birds evolved from dinosaurs, and required feathers to fly, the existance of non-flying, feathered dinosaurs is a prediction of evolution. Happily, we have now discovered a significant number of such dinosaurs, one of which, Mei long, was even found curled-up in a remarkably bird-like sleeping position (picture here).

The first feathered dinosaurs found were more recent than Archaeopteryx — feathered dinosaurs didn't die out as soon as birds evolved — but we now have Anchiornis, which has shown that feathered dinosaurs did indeed exist before Archaeopteryx.

Synapsids - mammals

Strictly speaking, the group that gave rise to mammals were not true reptiles (though they were closely related). Therefore, there is no transition from reptiles to mammals, but rather from synapsids to mammals. However, the terms mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are still sometimes used for these transitional fossils.

Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).
Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 2008) akin to those of modern mammals.

Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs: closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).
Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.
Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).
Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).

Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic: heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales: a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).

Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).
Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.
Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.
Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).
Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).
Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).
Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 1968).

Horses

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.
Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).
Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).
Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).
Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.
Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).

Apes - humans

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's.
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

Miscellaneous

* Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.
* Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 2008).
* Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).
* Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).
* Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).
* Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).
* Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 2008).
* Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).
* Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).
* Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).
* Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).
* Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).
* Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod [i.e. amphibian] and advanced amniote [i.e. reptile] characters" (Prothero, 2007).
* Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).
* Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2012 at 11:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Let's try to explan human's evolution in the most simple way. Natural selection is the basic mechanisms of evolution.
That is grotesquely incorrect. It's no wonder people reject evolution.

The basic mechanism of evolution is gene mutation. Period. That is all. That is it. End of story.

If there is no gene mutation, then no evolution can ever take place.

Natural Selection is something altogether different. Natural Selection never causes evolution; rather it only decides which genetic modifications are acceptable in a certain unique environment at that particular moment in time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
The three most important elements of natural selection are : 1-Mutation ,2-genetic drift,3-Qualities acquired from the environment.
Those are not "elements of natural selection."

I will give you an example of Natural Selection.

I take a spoonbill and put it in an environment that is dry and arid. What happens? The spoonbills all die off eventually and become totally extinct.

Why did the spoonbills not adapt and survive? Because they did not mutate.

In order for the spoonbills to survive in such an harsh environment, they would to genetically mutate, and that mutation would have to be beneficial or benign (not result in the death of the spoonbill) and it would have to help the spoonbill survive in its new harsher environment.

One such mutation that would help spoonbills survive is a mutation that results in the spoonbill mutating into a bill with a point, which would allow them to dig in the hard soil for insects etc to eat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
1-Mutation
What is mutaions ?
Mutation is usualy a random chemical change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology .
Clear ??
Uh....okay for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Ok let's continue ...
Over time natural selection gave the members of this group(animal with similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas ) adaptations , for example longer stronger arms.
How could that happene ?
genetic mutation in their entirety often fatal , most mutations do not give an advantage (longer stronger arms),Even those that are not fatal are disadvantageous.
"please wait .. don't rush to explain in 50 sentence with some big mysterious words to impress me".
That would be completely wrong.

What really happened was that an organism experienced a mutation in utero, probably due to the much higher levels of natural background radiation.

The mutation resulted in the organism have slightly longer appendages, specifically to wit the upper/lower arm.

This mutation was beneficial/benign.

The organism survived birth; then survived to sexual maturation; then survived long enough to reproduce.

The mutated gene was passed to the off-spring, probably as a recessive gene.

At this point, it will depend almost entirely on whether the original mutant was male or female, because if male, then the gene will be x-linked.

Otherwise the gene will be recessive, meaning that the offspring will possess the gene, but not display the trait of having longer arms.

You will have to wait until the gene becomes prevalent with that group, and that could take hours or millennium depending on the organism, how fast it reaches sexual maturity, how often it reproduces, and the size of the litter.

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a [static] population of 24 organisms and it takes 12 generations until all 24 organism possess the mutant gene, and then from that point on, all organism will have longer arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
2-genetic drift
As these small adaptations carried on from generation to generation.
Let us reach the maximum limits of imagination & Suppose genetic mutations Produced a good traits (not fatal ) it can not be inherited as mendel law of inheritance said.
That would be wrong as well.

Genetic drift can only occur after a population has been fully saturated. It can occur due to any number of reasons. Suppose we passed a law that said in North and South America, hemophiliacs were not allowed to reproduce nor could the be medically treated. The result would be genetic drift and in this instance, the gene that causes hemophilia would drift out of the human gene pool in the Americas forever.

The only way to get it back would be if a gene mutated anew or if a carrier of the gene from outside of North/South America re-introduced the gene into the North/South American population.

Also, regarding this....

"...it can not be inherited as mendel law of inheritance said."

...you might want to study your text book again and review Punnet Squares. Mendel's Laws say no such thing.

Mutated genes can and are inherited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
We can not build a whole theory on the rare incidents. "Also don't rush to explain in 100 sentence with some big mysterious words to impress me".
Okay, I won't. It's rather simple. Organism mutates; mutation is beneficial/benign; organism survives long enough to reach sexual maturation and reproduce; organism passes mutated gene on to offspring; offspring pass mutated gene through entire population (eventually); the environment and other factors do not impede the organism; the gene ends up as the dominant gene; and the organism has evolved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
W3-Qualities acquired from the environment one group of these early proto-apes lived a lifestyle were intelligence and cunning cleverness” was one of the traits .
(intelligence lifestyle as one of the traits ?!!!! )
Let's see :
intelligence traits which can not be Produced by fatal disadvantageous genetic mutation which also can not be inherited from generation to another !!!
What about qualities acquired from enviroment ?
Well ..
lets put it that way :
Arnold Schwarzenegger son would not born with big Muscles !!!
He must workout !!!
The more intelligent individuals produced more offspring until humans reached the intelligence levels we have today.
Nice story but not based on valid science.
Well, that is because you butchered the story and distorted it beyond any recognition. I don't know what you're babbling on about, but you're flapping about some fantasy and not evolution.

And I've noticed that a lot of people who criticize evolution either don't understand it or intentionally misrepresent it as a Straw Man Argument.

You also do not appear to be able to distinguish between learning and evolving.

If I'm an ape sitting around and I pick up a bone from a dead animal and start using it as a club, then I am now in possession of a tool. I have not evolved, but I have learned something.

It stands to reason that those who are more adept at learning, in other words, those other apes who ape (no pun intended) what I do have a useful tool. One thing that tool can be used for is self-defense. If I can defend myself and my crew better, then what we have here is one permutation of genetic drift.

Those who are more adept at learning, will live longer, reproduce more often and so forth, and the result is that the less intelligent die off and their genes permanently drift out of the population (or as I would say, the got Darwined -- but note I say that out of context as a joke).

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Once you understand how evolution works, you realize chimps and gorillas are just as “evolved” as we are,...
They have evolved to their limit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
...it’s just that the environment they evolved in selected different traits.
No. Wrong again.

Evolution requires mutation.

You can take a family of Homo Erectus and park them next to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Lake. They can spend eternity there and grow from a population of 32 to a more than 5 Billion Homo Erectus and they will never be able to speak.

Why? Because they did not mutate.

Just because they sit around drinking from the John F. Kennedy Memorial Lake doesn't mean they'll be running around saying, "Ask not what your clan can do for you.." in a few generations.

One of those Homo Erectus must be hit with a gamma ray, or X-ray, or proton, or neutron, or beta particle or a fission fragment or a nucleus right on on the gene that plays some role with speech. Once that happens, and the organism survives to reproduce and pass that mutated gene on, then eventually the whole population will end up with the "FPS2 Gene" and then they can run around yelling "Ask not what your clan can do for you..."

And it doesn't necessarily require radiation to cause mutations; it could be just a bad copy; or it could be chemically induced, perhaps the organism was vitamin or mineral deficient in some way, or ingested something that affected the gene.

There are many ways for genes to mutate, but understand that in the distant past, the natural background radiation on Earth was so intense that no human could have survived for more than a few minutes.

Over the last 3.5 Billion years, the natural background radiation has decreased tremendously, in part due to the formation of the atmosphere, in part due to the formation of Ozone (O3) in the atmosphere, and in part due to the half-life natural decay of radio-isotopes in the Earth's crust (which also includes crustal material that lies under the ocean floors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Since we are of the same type, it is natural to live in the same environment.
If that "common ancestor" story was right then nothing would make us different than chimps & gorillas .
chimps and gorillas didn’t need to be clever in order to be a successful species.
But we need it ..
right ?
Why ?
We were living in the same environment .
The whole story doesn't make any sense .
It is not valid nether theoretically or scientifically .
But again, that is because you either don't understand evolution, or you have intentionally misrepresented it.

It is still possible for apes to evolve, but it is highly unlikely.

Why? Natural background radiation. The natural background radiation today is significantly much less intense than the natural background radiation that existed 10 Million years ago when differentiation and evolution of humans first began.

Perhaps I should point out that higher levels of natural background radiation mean that the odds or chances of a genetic mutation occurring are much, much greater, and that they occurred at the time such mutations occurred with much greater frequency.

In other words, if you are being hit with 500 radioactive particles per hour, the chances of mutation occurring are much higher than if an organism is only getting hit with 50 radioactive particles per hour.

Eventually, as the natural background radiation is reduced to practically nil, mutations will be reduced to only those that occur biologically or chemically, and evolution on Earth will come to a near stand-still (if it hasn't already).

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
When I subtract (confront ) this idea to my College professor at class he begins to justify it in a very loooooooong boring way until my brain shut down ...
Finaly the students just said : "well ..Your idea make sense but he is a professor .. he must be right" !!!
The whole idea of my scientific paper shows that this whole process is not acceptable or logical once you but it in a simple way , That is the reason why every time scientists start to explan they have no other way but to dwelling it & use strange vocabulary in the most mysterious way just to make you look ignorant and can not absorb the topic !!!
In my humble opinion the whole theory was bult on some random rare incidents that contradict with some of the most basic scientific laws .
But you haven't put it in a simple way. Again, you either do not fully understand it, or you intentionally misrepresented it.

Not to rag on you or anything, but why are you at university? Because you shouldn't be. You certainly would not be admitted to any university in Europe.

And "strange vocabulary?" Uh, you are supposed to be studying and learning that vocabulary so that it is not strange.

Again, the fact that the vocabulary is strange to you is proof that not only would you never be admitted to a university in Europe, but that at the age of 16, you would never be accepted at a college preparatory school, (and you cannot go to university unless you have been to a college prep school). You should have had all of that vocabulary in high school in your biology and chemistry classes.

I had a student just like you in one of my Intro to International Relations classes. "I don't understand all of these Latin words." Yeah, like what? Jus Cogens. Well, there's a glossary in the back of your book...use it.

As a student, it is your job to learn the vocabulary, terms and phrases associated with the classes you take.

Without understanding evolution, you cannot levy legitimate criticisms of evolution, and it is possible to levy legitimate criticisms. I do. I have no problem with evolutionary theory in general, and I have no problem with human evolution up to a point, but I do have a problem with recent evolution, as it does not conform to statistical populations.

Theoretically...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 01:31 AM
 
3,636 posts, read 3,416,937 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
All I asked for was your definition of the word design . Take it easy
And when you display the basic qualifications to discuss the subject - such as not making up science to suit yourself and actually talking about what evolution is rather than the comical strawman you prefer to attack - then I will probably answer you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 03:06 AM
 
570 posts, read 731,847 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That is grotesquely incorrect. It's no wonder people reject evolution.

The basic mechanism of evolution is gene mutation. Period. That is all. That is it. End of story.

If there is no gene mutation, then no evolution can ever take place.

Natural Selection is something altogether different. Natural Selection never causes evolution; rather it only decides which genetic modifications are acceptable in a certain unique environment at that particular moment in time.



Those are not "elements of natural selection."

I will give you an example of Natural Selection.

I take a spoonbill and put it in an environment that is dry and arid. What happens? The spoonbills all die off eventually and become totally extinct.

Why did the spoonbills not adapt and survive? Because they did not mutate.

In order for the spoonbills to survive in such an harsh environment, they would to genetically mutate, and that mutation would have to be beneficial or benign (not result in the death of the spoonbill) and it would have to help the spoonbill survive in its new harsher environment.

One such mutation that would help spoonbills survive is a mutation that results in the spoonbill mutating into a bill with a point, which would allow them to dig in the hard soil for insects etc to eat.



Uh....okay for now.



That would be completely wrong.

What really happened was that an organism experienced a mutation in utero, probably due to the much higher levels of natural background radiation.

The mutation resulted in the organism have slightly longer appendages, specifically to wit the upper/lower arm.

This mutation was beneficial/benign.

The organism survived birth; then survived to sexual maturation; then survived long enough to reproduce.

The mutated gene was passed to the off-spring, probably as a recessive gene.

At this point, it will depend almost entirely on whether the original mutant was male or female, because if male, then the gene will be x-linked.

Otherwise the gene will be recessive, meaning that the offspring will possess the gene, but not display the trait of having longer arms.

You will have to wait until the gene becomes prevalent with that group, and that could take hours or millennium depending on the organism, how fast it reaches sexual maturity, how often it reproduces, and the size of the litter.

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a [static] population of 24 organisms and it takes 12 generations until all 24 organism possess the mutant gene, and then from that point on, all organism will have longer arms.



That would be wrong as well.

Genetic drift can only occur after a population has been fully saturated. It can occur due to any number of reasons. Suppose we passed a law that said in North and South America, hemophiliacs were not allowed to reproduce nor could the be medically treated. The result would be genetic drift and in this instance, the gene that causes hemophilia would drift out of the human gene pool in the Americas forever.

The only way to get it back would be if a gene mutated anew or if a carrier of the gene from outside of North/South America re-introduced the gene into the North/South American population.

Also, regarding this....

"...it can not be inherited as mendel law of inheritance said."

...you might want to study your text book again and review Punnet Squares. Mendel's Laws say no such thing.

Mutated genes can and are inherited.



Okay, I won't. It's rather simple. Organism mutates; mutation is beneficial/benign; organism survives long enough to reach sexual maturation and reproduce; organism passes mutated gene on to offspring; offspring pass mutated gene through entire population (eventually); the environment and other factors do not impede the organism; the gene ends up as the dominant gene; and the organism has evolved.



Well, that is because you butchered the story and distorted it beyond any recognition. I don't know what you're babbling on about, but you're flapping about some fantasy and not evolution.

And I've noticed that a lot of people who criticize evolution either don't understand it or intentionally misrepresent it as a Straw Man Argument.

You also do not appear to be able to distinguish between learning and evolving.

If I'm an ape sitting around and I pick up a bone from a dead animal and start using it as a club, then I am now in possession of a tool. I have not evolved, but I have learned something.

It stands to reason that those who are more adept at learning, in other words, those other apes who ape (no pun intended) what I do have a useful tool. One thing that tool can be used for is self-defense. If I can defend myself and my crew better, then what we have here is one permutation of genetic drift.

Those who are more adept at learning, will live longer, reproduce more often and so forth, and the result is that the less intelligent die off and their genes permanently drift out of the population (or as I would say, the got Darwined -- but note I say that out of context as a joke).



They have evolved to their limit.



No. Wrong again.

Evolution requires mutation.

You can take a family of Homo Erectus and park them next to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Lake. They can spend eternity there and grow from a population of 32 to a more than 5 Billion Homo Erectus and they will never be able to speak.

Why? Because they did not mutate.

Just because they sit around drinking from the John F. Kennedy Memorial Lake doesn't mean they'll be running around saying, "Ask not what your clan can do for you.." in a few generations.

One of those Homo Erectus must be hit with a gamma ray, or X-ray, or proton, or neutron, or beta particle or a fission fragment or a nucleus right on on the gene that plays some role with speech. Once that happens, and the organism survives to reproduce and pass that mutated gene on, then eventually the whole population will end up with the "FPS2 Gene" and then they can run around yelling "Ask not what your clan can do for you..."

And it doesn't necessarily require radiation to cause mutations; it could be just a bad copy; or it could be chemically induced, perhaps the organism was vitamin or mineral deficient in some way, or ingested something that affected the gene.

There are many ways for genes to mutate, but understand that in the distant past, the natural background radiation on Earth was so intense that no human could have survived for more than a few minutes.

Over the last 3.5 Billion years, the natural background radiation has decreased tremendously, in part due to the formation of the atmosphere, in part due to the formation of Ozone (O3) in the atmosphere, and in part due to the half-life natural decay of radio-isotopes in the Earth's crust (which also includes crustal material that lies under the ocean floors.



But again, that is because you either don't understand evolution, or you have intentionally misrepresented it.

It is still possible for apes to evolve, but it is highly unlikely.

Why? Natural background radiation. The natural background radiation today is significantly much less intense than the natural background radiation that existed 10 Million years ago when differentiation and evolution of humans first began.

Perhaps I should point out that higher levels of natural background radiation mean that the odds or chances of a genetic mutation occurring are much, much greater, and that they occurred at the time such mutations occurred with much greater frequency.

In other words, if you are being hit with 500 radioactive particles per hour, the chances of mutation occurring are much higher than if an organism is only getting hit with 50 radioactive particles per hour.

Eventually, as the natural background radiation is reduced to practically nil, mutations will be reduced to only those that occur biologically or chemically, and evolution on Earth will come to a near stand-still (if it hasn't already).



But you haven't put it in a simple way. Again, you either do not fully understand it, or you intentionally misrepresented it.

Not to rag on you or anything, but why are you at university? Because you shouldn't be. You certainly would not be admitted to any university in Europe.

And "strange vocabulary?" Uh, you are supposed to be studying and learning that vocabulary so that it is not strange.

Again, the fact that the vocabulary is strange to you is proof that not only would you never be admitted to a university in Europe, but that at the age of 16, you would never be accepted at a college preparatory school, (and you cannot go to university unless you have been to a college prep school). You should have had all of that vocabulary in high school in your biology and chemistry classes.

I had a student just like you in one of my Intro to International Relations classes. "I don't understand all of these Latin words." Yeah, like what? Jus Cogens. Well, there's a glossary in the back of your book...use it.

As a student, it is your job to learn the vocabulary, terms and phrases associated with the classes you take.

Without understanding evolution, you cannot levy legitimate criticisms of evolution, and it is possible to levy legitimate criticisms. I do. I have no problem with evolutionary theory in general, and I have no problem with human evolution up to a point, but I do have a problem with recent evolution, as it does not conform to statistical populations.

Theoretically...

Mircea
Hi Mircea ...
Thanks for the effort that you made on your post .
I will make it quick as I am getting ready for my exams .
*First , You can consider this as my own way of defining some aspects of evolution without prejudice the main principles .
*Second , the topic is already beyond those points ...
*Third , I am an Arab Muslim & English is not my native language , I begin learning English two years ago along with French and Latin .
*Fourth , I did not ask to join any of Europe's universities ... actually I got a scholarship at one of Britain's universities .
*Fifth , I'm trying my best to learn about the theory of evolution and every day I learn something new .
* Last but not least ,As for evolution just give me a couple of months and I will be the rifleman of the new generation (the Islamic version ).

Take care

Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-12-2012 at 03:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 03:13 AM
 
570 posts, read 731,847 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
And when you display the basic qualifications to discuss the subject - such as not making up science to suit yourself and actually talking about what evolution is rather than the comical strawman you prefer to attack - then I will probably answer you.
What you see as "Making up science" I see it as the basis for the emergence of new theories .
As you wish
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 03:33 AM
 
570 posts, read 731,847 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
First off - I agree with Rifleman.

"You I give significantly more intellectual and curiosity credit to. You often at least try to answer our questions,"

Eusebius simply posted a cartoon caricature of evolution which in fact (in very broad terms) would be quite feasible if it fitted the evidence - whic of course it doesn't. I repeat that I appreciate the efforts you are making with a tough subject and I can roll with the occasion attempt to make a bit of biology look like something that somebody deliberately painted.




While the origins of the cell and DNA are another question and I am not going to try to tell you that i can prove that it all 'evolved', I am content that you agree that evolution theory plus the evidence suggests that an evolutionary development of life is the way animals and plants got to where they are now from that first cell.

Also that 'picture - that has to be something boichemical - though i I've seen micrographs of bacilli before. Remember - pretty doesn't necessarily mean designed. Crystals and snowflakes are pretty.

You got it. I put together a LOT of sources, leaving out references to all the fossils, but mentioning the 'signpost' ones and providing links to some particularly nice sites. This is just the tip of the iceberg so as to keep it simple for both of us.


The evolution of the eye

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?...
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

(Arq - that's a good theory, where's the evidence?)

Direct evidence has continued to be hard to come by. Whereas scholars who study the evolution of the skeleton can readily document its metamorphosis in the fossil record, soft-tissue structures rarely fossilize.
biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose.

“Part of the trouble in tracing the evolution of the eye is that soft tissues don’t tend to fossilise. But the eye cavities in the braincase of these 400 million-year-old fossil fish were lined with a delicate layer of very thin bone. All the details of the nerve canals and muscle insertions inside the eye socket are preserved – the first definite fossil evidence demonstrating an intermediate stage in the evolution of our most complex sensory organ.

(But) The ancient limestone reefs exposed around Lake Burrinjuck in New South Wales have produced exceptionally well preserved placoderm specimens with the braincase intact,” Dr Young said.

The palaeobiologist discovered that unlike all living vertebrate animals – which includes everything from the jawless lamprey fish to humans – placoderms had a different arrangement of muscles and nerves supporting the eyeball – evidence of an “intermediate stage” between the evolution of jawless and jawed vertebrates.

Fresh Fossil Evidence Of Eye Forerunner Uncovered

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

various sources

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
Evolution of the Eye: Scientific American
Fresh Fossil Evidence Of Eye Forerunner Uncovered

I did of course come across Sean Pitman's sites questioning various aspects of evolution, including the eye. The questions are valid, but it's the old problem of finding something that can't be answered right now and pretending the discredits the whole theory. What's worrying is that Dr Pitman appears to use science that is actually wrong to make his case.

This site, while rather rude about ID does point up recent discoveries which show that some of the ID objections to the mechanism of evolution (including the processes of eye evolution) are being answered.

the evolution of retinal biochemistry is advancing quite nicely. Here is a review article from the same time as Behe’s article referenced above (1996-7), showing, for example, the branching pattern of relatedness in the amino acid structure of the opsin group of proteins used in vision. Here is a slightly more recent article from 2002 which reviews the phylogeny of visual protein systems.
The evidence is there, and growing, but creationists have never been bothered much by the evidence. Behe’s strategy is to just show how gee-whiz-complex the biochemistry of vision is then make the classic argument from personal incredulity. He fails to acknowledge, however, that such complexity evolves not so that the system can work at all but to make the system more sensitive, more specific, or more finely tuned. For example, a protein cascade can amplify the signal, allowing greater sensitivity to light. A less light-sensitive system can still work and provide a survival advantage.
NeuroLogica Blog » Another Gap Filled – More Evidence for Eye Evolution


You tube.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye



mammal to horse and human

Permian mammal origins
Early in the evolution of the therapsids arose a group called the cynodonts. These early mammal-like reptiles changed their teeth from being designed for catching and holding prey and then swallowing whole, to adding specialized teeth, including molars, designed for better mastication of food allowing for quicker digestion.

During the Permian period (c299 to 251 Million years ago), the cynodonts ("dog-toothed" reptiles) that descended from the earliest therapsids developed some distinctly mammalian characteristics. There's solid evidence that reptiles like Cynognathus and Thrinaxodon had fur, and they may also have had warm-blooded metabolisms and black, wet, dog-like noses. Cynognathus (Greek for "dog jaw") may even have given birth to live young, which by almost any measure would make it much closer to a mammal than to a reptile!

Triassic 250 to 200 million years ago)
the first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era
Mesozoic Mammal Pictures - Pictures of Mammals of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods
these synapsids (once called “mammal-like reptiles”) were very abundant in the early Triassic (world. They came in a wide variety of sizes and shapes, from large, cow-like dicynodonts (such as Lystrosaurus), to fanged, carnivorous gorgonopsians, to tiny insectivorous tritylodonts.

Therapsid Pictures - Pictures of Therapsid Reptiles

Jurassic 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago

Ask the average person (or high schooler) on the street, and he’ll guess that the first mammals didn't appear on the scene until after the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago-...: in fact, the first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era. ...These popular misconceptions about the mammals of the Mesozoic Era are easy to explain: scientifically speaking, dinosaurs tended to be very, very big and early mammals tended to be very, very small. With a couple of exceptions, the first mammals were tiny, inoffensive creatures, rarely more than a few inches long and a few ounces in weight. Thanks to their low profiles, these hard-to-see critters could feed on insects and small reptiles (which bigger raptors and tyrannosaurs tended to ignore), and they could also scurry up trees to avoid getting stomped on by larger ornithopods and sauropods.

Juramia sinensis, a shrew-like mammal, is the earliest placental mammal found to date. Mark A. Klingler/Carnegie Museum of Natural History
(see final notes. here's our 'common ancestor' - or the nearest thing.

This pointy-nosed shrew, a new fossil find from China, may be the earliest grandmother of all placental mammals, scientists report in a new study. Or perhaps she is the oldest great-aunt. Either way, it’s another big find this week in paleontology. The new shrew, Juramia sinensis, is the earliest known example of a placental mammal, which (unlike egg-laying monotremes and pouch-carrying marsupials) gives live birth.

Cretaceous circa 145.5 ± 4 to 65.5 ± 0.3 million years ago

When the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought. Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.
Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

Arq (While I haven't given the site origins of some very general information, this is so interesting, that I will (China agan! I do hope there isn't a factory in Shanghai manufacturing this stuff!)
Large mammals once dined on dinosaurs - life - 12 January 2005 - New Scientist

Cenozoic 65 million years ago

The mammals that came through the extinction seem to have been small rat-sized animals. They were a primitive form of ungulate. We know ungulates as hoofed animals such as horses, cows and such. But these early ungulates had claws. They rapidly expanded into every one of the niches left vacant by the departing dinosaurs
The KT Event set the stage for the Cenozoic Era Cenozoic Era that began 65 million years ago. As the dinosaurs perished at the end of the Cretaceous, the mammals took center stage. Even as mammals increased in numbers and diversity, From a geological perspective, it did not take long for mammals and birds to greatly diversify in the absence of the large reptiles that had dominated during the Mesozoic. Some birds grew larger than the average human. This group became known as the "terror birds," and were formidable predators. Mammals came to occupy almost every available niche (both marine and terrestrial), and some also grew very large, attaining sizes not seen in most of today's mammals.

Palaeocene 65.5 to 56 million years ago
Back in the northern hemisphere, another family of condylarths, the Phenacodontidae, may include the ancestors of a more familiar ungulate order: The odd-toed ungulates or Perissodactyla, represented by horses, rhinos and tapirs in the recent fauna. Historically, phenacodontids form the core of the Condylarthra. Well-preserved skeletons are known for the type genus Phenacodus, which is a good model of an ancestral ungulate with beginning adaptations for running.

Eocene about 52 mya (million years ago)
The earliest animal to bear recognizably horse-like anatomy was the Hyracotherium ("hyrax-like beast"). Its scientific name is derived from initial confusion over early partial fossils' relationship with living species: Richard Owen likened early Hyracotherium fossils "to a hare in one passage and to something between a hog and a hyrax in another".[12] A later name for the Hyracotherium, "eohippus" ("dawn horse"), is also popular, though the earlier name takes precedence due to scientific naming conventions.[13][14]

Hyracotherium lived in the Ypresian (early Eocene) . It was an animal approximately the size of a fox (250–450 mm in height), with a relatively short head and neck and a springy, arched back

The first artiodactyl fossils (including the rabbit-sized Diacodexis and Protodichobune) appear around 54 million years ago, in the early Eocene deposits of North America and Europe. These early even-toed ungulates had the full placental complement of low-crowned teeth (44 in total), four distinct toes on each foot, and no cranial appendages. Arising at a time when perissodactyls dominated the large herbivorous niches, artiodactyls remained relatively unspecialized until the Oligocene, when an explosive radiation is apparent (primarily in Eurasia). Link given as there is an illustration of the various kinds of mammals that deceloped from what might be considered one 'link' from to horses.

Order Cetartiodactyla - Even-toed ungulates (and whales)

Oligocene Following the terminal Eocene extinction which took out the Dinocerata, Archaeoceti, and most of the Titanotheres and creodonts, new kinds of mammals evolved and expanded in an evolutionary radiation of many new types. These included the prehistoric ancestors of dogs, cats, rhinoceroses (including both small slender running types and hippo-like semi-aquatic forms), and horses (such as Mesohippus,..)

Miocene 18 m years ago
Soon after Mesohippus celer and its very close relative Mesohippus westoni appeared, a similar animal called Miohippus assiniboiensis arose (approximately 36 My). This transition also occurred suddenly, but luckily a few transitional fossils have been found that link the two genera.

Pliocene

Horses

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.
Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).
Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).
Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).
Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.
Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).

Plastacene

VIII. One-Toed Horses (Late Miocene, Pliocene & Pleistocene)
The late merychippine species of this line, such as M. carrizoensis, were large horses with small side toes. They gave rise to at least 2 separate groups of horses that independently lost their side toes. This occurred as side ligaments developed around the fetlock to help stabilize the central toe during running. These one-toed horses include:
Pliohippus

Arose in middle Miocene (~15 My) as a three-toed horse. Gradual loss of the side toes is seen in Pliohippus through 3 successive strata of the early Pliocene. Pliohippus was very similar to Equus and until recently was thought to be the direct ancestor of Equus, except for two significant differences. First, Pliohippus's skull has deep facial fossae, whereas Equus has no facial fossae at all. Second, Pliohippus's teeth are strongly curved, and Equus's teeth are very straight. Though Pliohippus is obviously related to Equus, it probably didn't give rise to Equus.
Astrohippus

Astrohippus (~10My) was another one-toed horse that arose shortly after Pliohippus. Astrohippus also had large facial fossae, and was probably a descendent of Pliohippus.
Dinohippus

Finally, a third one-toed horse called Dinohippus (recently discovered) arose about 12 My. The exact ancestor of Dinohippus is not yet known (see Evander, 1989). The earliest known species are D. spectans, D. interpolatus, and D. leidyanus... Dinohippus was the most common horse in North America in the late Pliocene, and almost certainly gave rise to Equus. (Recall that Equus has very straight teeth and no fossae.)....

Throughout the end of the Pliocene, Dinohippus showed a gradual decrease in the facial fossae, straightening of the teeth, and other gradual changes, as Dinohippus smoothly graded into Equus. (Hulbert, 1989)


Equus

Finally we arrive at Equus (4 My), the genus of all modern equines. The first Equus were 13.2 hands tall (pony size), with a classic "horsey" body -- rigid spine, long neck, long legs, fused leg bones with no rotation, long nose, flexible muzzle, deep jaw. The brain was a bit larger than in early Dinohippus. Like Dinohippus, Equus was (and is) one-toed, with side ligaments that prevent twisting of the hoof, and has high-crowned, straight grazing teeth with strong crests lined with cement.

Members of Equus still retain the genes for making side toes. Usually these express themselves only as the vestigial "splint bones" of toes 2 and 4, around the large central 3rd toe. Very rarely, a modern Equus is born with small but fully-formed side toes. (see Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horses' Toes.)

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

And a final perceptive word from a christian website.

Popular presentations that suggest a simple, gradual, and progressive straight-line of evolution from Hyracotherium to Equus are not supported by the actual fossil data. Most evolutionary scientists now acknowledge that this is the case. For instance, Soper (1997 p.890), in Biological Science, writes:

The history of the horse does not show a gradual transition regularly spaced in time and locality, and neither is the fossil record totally complete.

Similarly, in the textbook Advanced Biology, Roberts et al (2000 p.733) say:

...palaeontologists believe that there were numerous complications. For one thing, the rate at which evolution took place was probably not uniform, but sporadic and irregular. For another, there are thought to have been times when certain of the trends were reversed when, for instance, horses became smaller for a while.

Evidence for evolutionary change?

Of course, none of this disproves the series; it is merely that textbooks and museum displays are simplistic, portraying only selected trends. They do not reflect all the twists, turns, offshoots, and dead-ends that are evident in the fossil record. However, non-evolutionary scientists do not need to disprove it – because, in fact, the horse series is perfectly consistent with a non-evolutionary explanation of the development of life.

Horse Evolution


The primate line to humans

jurassic The earliest ancestor of most of today’s mammals has been discovered in northeast China, according to a paper in the latest issue of the journal Nature.
Named Juramaia sinensis, which means the “Jurassic mother from China,” the small, shrew-like animal spent some of its time in trees while dinosaurs thrived on land.

Cretaceous.The first mammal that paleontologists have identified as possessing primate-like characteristics was Purgatorius, a tiny, mouse-sized creature of the late Cretaceous period (just before the K/T Impact Event that rendered the dinosaurs extinct). Although it looked more like a tree shrew than a monkey or ape, Purgatorius had a very primate-like set of teeth, and it (or a close relative) may have spawned the more familiar primates of the Cenozoic Era.

The very earliest known primate fossils date back no further than the late Cretaceous (approx. 70 mya). But the absence of earlier primate fossils does not mean primates themselves were absent at an earlier date. For all terrestrial organisms the fossil record is next to nonexistent in the early and middle Cretaceous, a period of about sixty million years (beginning at about 144 mya). Moreover, because their tropical forest habitat is not conducive to the formation of fossils, primates are rarely preserved even in much more recent strata. Primates therefore could easily have existed long before the date corresponding to the earliest known primate fossils.

Michael Heads, (a Research Associate of the Buffalo Museum of Science,).. shows that the distribution ranges of primates and their nearest relatives, the tree shrews and the flying lemurs, conforms to a pattern that would be expected from their having evolved from a widespread ancestor. This ancestor could have evolved into the extinct Plesiadapiformes in north America and Eurasia, the primates in central-South America, Africa, India and south East Asia, and the tree shrews and flying lemurs in South East Asia.

Those fossils that actually are known strongly suggest primates—and therefore placental mammals—are much older than is generally believed. The first fact to consider in this connection is that monkey (cercopithecoid) fossils are known from the mid-Tertiary both of Africa and South America. At that time, South America had long been isolated from Africa by an ocean barrier

The very earliest known primate fossils date back no further than the late Cretaceous (approx. 70 mya). But the absence of earlier primate fossils does not mean primates themselves were absent at an earlier date. ..
Those fossils that actually are known strongly suggest primates—and therefore placental mammals—are much older than is generally believed. The first fact to consider in this connection is that monkey (cercopithecoid) fossils are known from the mid-Tertiary both of Africa and South America. At that time, South America had long been isolated from Africa by an ocean barrier
...The fact that stegosaurid/pangolins are known from Jurassic strata is also consistent with this conclusion. Some writers have suggested monkeys and lemurs “rafted” across the Atlantic Ocean on dead trees and debris. But this is implausible. Drifting at random, without provisions on an open ocean, a primate would face almost inevitable death....The earliest known specimen is a lemur molar from the late Cretaceous (or early Paleocene) of Montana. Extant lemurs are limited to Madagascar, an island that, according to Rabinowitz et al. (1983) has been isolated by an ocean barrier since at least 150 mya, that is, the late Jurassic. About latest time that a lemur could have walked from Madagascar to Laurasia was in the early Cretaceous — at about 170 mya. These facts suggest that primates predate 170 mya and, consequently, that origin of placental mammals occurred in (or prior to) the early Jurassic — a time when it is generally agreed that the latest synapsids were still in existence.

Miocene 18 m years ago

The Miocene hominoids are particularly interesting to students of human evolution because they reflect adaptive radiations that immediately preceded that of humans. Four families of Miocene apes are generally recognized: Proconsulidae, Oreopithecidae, Pliopithecidae, and Pongidae. Early Miocene hominoids are best known from East African Proconsulidae, whose species vary widely in size from about 3 kg to over 50 kg. Although teeth and fragmentary skeletal fossils are numerous, a remarkably complete skeleton of one species, Proconsul africanus, was found on Rusinga Island, Kenya.

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Pliocene Primate- hominids
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's.
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

Conclusion:-
so for horse evolution we get

Juramia sinensis, a shrew-like mammal, is the earliest placental mammal found to date. Mark A. Klingler/Carnegie Museum of Natural History

This pointy-nosed shrew, a new fossil find from China, may be the earliest grandmother of all placental mammals, scientists report in a new study. Or perhaps she is the oldest great-aunt. Either way, it’s another big find this week in paleontology. The new shrew, Juramia sinensis, is the earliest known example of a placental mammal, which (unlike egg-laying monotremes and pouch-carrying marsupials) gives live birth.

and for primates we get

The earliest ancestor of most of today’s mammals has been discovered in northeast China, according to a paper in the latest issue of the journal Nature.
Named Juramaia sinensis, which means the “Jurassic mother from China,” the small, shrew-like animal spent some of its time in trees while dinosaurs thrived on land.

So that is the nearest thing to a candidate for a common ancestor for the evolutionary branches that led to horses one way and to humans the other.

P.s I don't know if you were hinting above that there are no transitional fossils. However, I have a handy list. And i strongly suspect that a dozen or so have been added since then.


The fossils show a gradual development over time and you don't get Eocene mammals turning up in Permian deposits, erosional wash in from later rocks (which is easy to detect) aside.

the fossils also show what is not easy to see over short time -scales: transitional changes between forms. The theory of evolution predicted that there should be transitional and these have been found.
Archaeopteryx, famously, the horse sequence Eohippus to horse, Ambulocetus land mammal through sea forms to Basilaeosaurus (a mammal not a dinosaur) prehistoric whale and to present day whales.
And of course, the hominids from Australopithecus through a sequence of forms to man. Not a simple one line descent. There were many forms and related branches. The development of related side - branches is actually
evidence of the evolutionary process of hominids going on in different ways. There are no real 'missing links'. Those we have are markers, as it were, showing the way the development was going, not any specific direct ancestor.

Transitionals - Fish
Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).
Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).
Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).
Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 2008). Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.
Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).
Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).
Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms [i.e. the above animals] and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).

These creatures were related to the lungfish of their time, and almost certainly all had lungs themselves.

It would be a mistake to think that the first tetrapods moving on land needed limbs capable of bearing their full weight; legs sprawled to the side would be enough to move about with. One thing the above fossils seem to show is that legs first evolved for crawling over the bottom of the water; only later did their use on land become paramount.

Dinosaur - bird
Dinosaurs - birds

Most dinosaur-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.

Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).
Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009).
Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.
Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).
Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).
Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.

As birds evolved from dinosaurs, and required feathers to fly, the existance of non-flying, feathered dinosaurs is a prediction of evolution. Happily, we have now discovered a significant number of such dinosaurs, one of which, Mei long, was even found curled-up in a remarkably bird-like sleeping position (picture here).

The first feathered dinosaurs found were more recent than Archaeopteryx — feathered dinosaurs didn't die out as soon as birds evolved — but we now have Anchiornis, which has shown that feathered dinosaurs did indeed exist before Archaeopteryx.

Synapsids - mammals

Strictly speaking, the group that gave rise to mammals were not true reptiles (though they were closely related). Therefore, there is no transition from reptiles to mammals, but rather from synapsids to mammals. However, the terms mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are still sometimes used for these transitional fossils.

Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).
Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 2008) akin to those of modern mammals.

Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs: closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).
Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.
Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).
Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).

Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic: heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales: a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).

Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).
Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.
Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.
Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).
Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).
Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).
Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 1968).

Horses

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.
Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 2008).
Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).
Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 2008). They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).
Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 2008).
Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.
Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).

Apes - humans

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's.
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

Miscellaneous

* Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.
* Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 2008).
* Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).
* Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).
* Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).
* Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).
* Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 2008).
* Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).
* Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).
* Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).
* Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).
* Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).
* Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod [i.e. amphibian] and advanced amniote [i.e. reptile] characters" (Prothero, 2007).
* Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).
* Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).

(A few) transitional fossils
.....
I will reply next year ... ammm... I mean saturday .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top