What is the best Internet link to see actual photographs (not artist
drawings) of fossils that show a change in species over time?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 01 Sep 2005 12:55 PDT

Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?



http://wfscnet.tamu.edu/courses/wfsc421/lecture11/sld011.htm

---

Clarification of Question by curiouscalifornian-ga on 01 Sep 2005 13:26 PDT

Yes. But I'm looking for the best comprehensive set of pictures, not
just a one or two.

And preferably more dramatic examples than little horses becoming bigger horses.

---

Clarification of Question by curiouscalifornian-ga on 25 Sep 2005 15:07 PDT

I don't believe in Intelligent Design or Creation, but sadly I have to
conclude from the answers given here so far, that evolution isn't
supported by the fossil records. If it were, certainly those good
examples would be abundant on the Internet, and not just artist
renditions and text descriptions. Photos would be there.

I don't think it's a convincing argument for slime-to-elephant
evolution to see fossil evidence that horses change size over time, or
one kind of bird gets a new beak. I was hoping to find evidence for
more dramatic changes.

Nor am I too excited about a bunch of humanish skulls that are
different looking and different ages. There's too much potential for
them to have existed at the same time.

Let me be clear that I am not arguing against evolution. I am only
questioning the claim that the fossil record tells a convincing story.

What could be more dramatic that little horses becoming big horses? 
That is what evolution is all about.  Slow, incremental change
adapting to external factors that increase the chances that the
species will survive.

Theories competing with Evolution would argue that each horse's head
depicted in the series was brought into existance independently,
without the influence of preceding generations of horses.  Similarly,
the disappearance of older forms of horses was NOT due to the fact
that future generations of horses were better adapted at surviving in
their environment.

Agruments against evolution point out that random changes could never
produce the diversity of life that we experience.  What they fail to
consider is that random changes that do not make the species better
quickly die out and do not contribute to future generations.  It is
only the successful changes that get selected to survive.  The
selection is not random, it is natural.  Governed by the survival of
the species.

May I be allowed to post an blatantly pro-evolution link?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1565300,00.html

Basically, it's about how creationists claim scientific basis in an
argument, when their own beliefs do not actually have any scientific
merit.

And arguing that you just cannot add 'creationism' into a school
curriculum, at least not anywhere near the science classes.

A:) No Fossils exist that show a transistional form between any phyla.
B:) Fossils that are held as transistional forms between species are
held in such regard based on speculation.

Quoted from a comment above: 
"What they fail to consider is that random changes that do not make
the species better quickly die out and do not contribute to future
generations.  It is
only the successful changes that get selected to survive.  The
selection is not random, it is natural."

Sorry, but under the Neo-Darwinian theory macro-evolution is a
cumination of successive mutations. The simplest mutations (point
mutations) are random events. 1 mutation out of 10,000 to 10,000,000
is beneficial, while the rest are neutral and deletrious. Most
beneficial mutations are lost from a population due to genetic drift.
Any beneficial mutation that could be passed down from one organism to
its offspring must occur in the narrow span of the organisms genome
that comprises its gametes.

When a random mutation is beneficial to an organism it increases the
fitness of that organism and it more effectively reproduces. Natural
Selection (in its most basic definition) is an envirnomental pressure
upon an organism. The choice seen in Natural Selection is a choice
between randomly generated mutations.

Statistically, the culmination of our present bio-diversity (extant on
the Earth today) via the mechanisms of mutation and Natural Selection
is a number so vanishingly small as to be a "miracle".

Concerning the above quote:
"Basically, it's about how creationists claim scientific basis in an
argument, when their own beliefs do not actually have any scientific
merit."

Please read some of the works done by evolutionist Steven Jay Gould;
who admitted that the theory of Neo-Darwinism was statistically
impossible without some sort of super mutational force (thus the
theory of punctuated equilibrium). As for scientists who don't believe
in the theory of macroevolution as it currently stands, goto this link
for a signed list:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114

As for scientific merit to the creationist position anyone interested
can read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel or many of the
scientific works by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross. Origins of Life by both
Ross and Rana is one of the best works comparing the naturalistic
theories of life's origins to the Biblical model and the science
behind both camps. Many topics relating to the science behind a
creationist model can be found at: www.reasons.org.

QED: the creationist argument is that "evolutionary theory currently
has flaws, therefore we must believe in a creator". Doesn't convince
me, I'm afraid. And exactly the point of the author from The Guardian.

Small horses still become bigger horses in the stratigraphic record.

As Darwin does point out in 'The Origin of Species' (q.v.),
evolutionary change would happen easier in isolated, small populations
(thus actually reducing the risk of random beneficial changes being
lost to genetic drift - but of course genetic theory wasn't developed
in the 1850s), which would reduce the chance of those intermediaries
being preserved in the fossil record.

Yes, I know I should re-write that paragraph. Sorry.

Gould's punctuated equilibrium is about a temporary loosening of
selective pressures, allowing speciation run wild for a brief period.
But 'brief' is in the geological sense, so we might be talking
millions of years. And if you've really read Gould, I doubt you'd
quote him in a pro-creationism context :-)

Basically, we're lucky to have such a complete picture of the
evolution of horses or humans as we do.

You might want to look at the Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org) for this.