Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnSabre
Then where are the fossils?
|
As MontanaGuy said, there are numerous fossils of what you claim. What's funny is that when presented with, say, the evidence for horse evolution, a common tactic is to pick an entirely different species of animal and say "Oh yeah, well what about this?!?! There's no fossil evidence for this species!!!!" Again, when proven wrong, the person jumps to another species and says "Aha!! I got you this time! There are no such fossils showing the evolution of this creature/animal!!" It's called 'moving the goalposts'. It's a common tactic used by Creationists that no matter what evidence is presented it simply isn't good enough.
To answer your question, if you go to the Museum of Natural Science and History in New York City, they have an absolutely fantastic display on the evolution of the horse. They show numerous "in-betweens" that you ask for.
One final thing. If we had EVERY single fossil for EVERY single creature we would not know what was what and we would have no way of classifying it. Let me put it this way.
Go out and take a look at a giant tree sometime. An oak is a good example because they tend to grow branches at all levels of the tree. Now, imagine that that tree is the tree of life. All as one, it constitutes the entire tree. All the branches, twigs, leaves, and nubs all constitute part of the tree. Now, picture you being able to take one cut in the tree and examining that part of it. Would you take one branch? One twig? Or would you cut at the very base of the tree and fell it?
If you took one branch you'd still understand that that branch came from a tree. You'd know that there were a serious of steps leading up to the formation of that branch and that it belonged to an overall "bigger chunk of tree". Similarly, if you were to only cut a twig, you'd know that that twig came from a gradual series of steps from a branch that came from a gradual series of steps from a tree that grew to make that branch from a gradual series of steps. Each branch, twig, etc... is all related to the tree. Some may be closer than others, but it is all part of the tree.
NOW, take a swipe at the tree from the very base. You still have an ENTIRE tree (roots excluded) with all the branches twigs, and nubs intact. You could still possibly point to a branch, but since you have the entire tree you couldn't start breaking that branch down as anything less than the entire tree without actually performing the "one swipe" technique on the branch. Make sense?
Irregardless, there is a whole science behind phylogenetic trees and how to classify species and organisms. I've only tried to give a very broad, visual image of it. One thing about phylogenetics... it is one of the most hotly contested parts of science. Recently, archaeologists unearthed a creature that was so closely half-mammalian/half-reptilian that these scientists actually almost got in a fistfight over whether to call it a mammal-like reptile or a reptilian-like mammal. See what happens when we start closing the gaps?? It gets hairy - no pun intended
Walking with Dinosaurs - Fact File: Cynodont
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.
