Evolutionary theory suggests mammals evolved from non-mammalian ancestors. If so, then surely there should be transitional forms showing a mixture of mammalian and non-mammalian characters.
And there are. The oldest complete fossil mammal skulls date from the Lower Jurassic. These include a critter called /Morganucodon/. Like all living mammals, it has a jaw-skull joint called the dentary-squamosal and its middle ear is housed within one bone called the petrosal. It also has four distinct types of tooth, and there's no evidence that any of them were replaced more than once.
Those, and many more features, only occur in mammals.
However, in contrast to all living mammals, it's lower jaw is composed of six or seven bones per side. All living mammals have but a single bone. Furthermore, unlike any living mammals, it has a second, smaller jaw joint called the articular-quadrate, and its middle ear contained only one small bone for processing sound.
These features occur in no living mammals at all.
/Morganucodon/ is thus a transitional form between non-mammalian cynodonts and later mammals. Plenty of other such examples are known, despite assurances to the contrary from people who don't generally know anything about the fossil record. If you want whales with legs, the fossil record has them. It also has snakes with legs, manatees with legs, and early amphibians which look much more like fish than any living amphibians.Regarding evolution: Is it true that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record?
There are many examples of transitional species in the fossil records. For instance, scientists have discovered several species that bridge the gap between terrestrial mammals and whales; there are species that progress from fish to amphibians and then to reptiles; and there are fossil records from several species of hominids that chart the evolution of apes to humans. Google the topic and look at some of the pictures of these fossils.Regarding evolution: Is it true that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record?
*100% pure fact from Palentologists (fossil dudes)*
There are TONS of transitional fossils and now the argument is how to classify them.
So answer is that is false
This is a myth that starts because people point to transitional forms and say, ';Well, that's it's own species.'; This is true - but since we categorize everything as a particular species this says nothing. Many of these species are clearly transitional between larger groups, as listed above.
There are lots of transitional forms. However, each time a new transitional form is discovered, that changes the single gap (species 1 to species 2) to two gaps (species one to transitional form and transitional form to species 2). That keeps the creationists well supplied with meaningless quibbles.
There are no transitional forms from species to species, but there is a definition problem with species. A bird could get a genetic mutation to have a yellow spot on it's wing that could be carried to successive generations and that bird would be a new species.
How about humans?
Chinese people have the eye trait and they are not a different species of human.
Blacks have the dark skin thing and they are not a different species.
Swedes have the light skin, blue eyes, blond hair thing and they are not a different species.
What's the problem here?
yes,its true.but the fossils we obtained from different period makes us to think about the transition
That's a good point - I'll check it out. Also if we evolved say from apes then why are there still apes?
Just playing devil's advocate here - I tend to believe in evolution and I also believe in a higher power than man to dispel any arguments from either camp.
No comments:
Post a Comment