It's not as if a paleontologist stumbles across one fossilized bone and immediately proceeds to pontificate on what the fossil means for evolution. One bone from an animal never before seen means very little in terms of evolution. First the fossil must be put in context: where, when, how deep, the geology of the site, the age of the location, what else was found in that place, and so on. Then the animal from which the bone came has to be identified (if possible). If the fossil-animal can be identified, then there can be a comparison of similar, older and younger fossils. Never mind the difficulty of extracting the whole fossil from its substrate.

All of this is likely to take years and involve many people. A fairly large body of information has been built up which enables paleontologists to occasionally see clear evidence of evolution. Why not more evidence? only a tiny portion of fossil-bearing rock has been, or can be investigated. Most of the fossil-bearing rock are too deeply buried under over-burden.

In fact, fossils do provide evidence for evolution, but the record is by no means complete. Many steps between species are missing.

Take archaeopteryx lithographica, the earliest bird to get the worm.

A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx c, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.
It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.

So the status of this "bird" if that's what it is, is not an open and shut case yet.

I am wondering how strong the case is for the standard history of evolution. — Gregory

There isn't really a standard history, as it's being constantly updated. I think the only orthodoxy is that evolution occurs, but there's enormous range in the specifics. In the last decade or so, there have been discoveries of now-extinct hominids that branched off the line leading to h. sapiens, such as the denosovans and h. florensis. There's been the discovery that at least some of the genetic base of neanerthaal is found in h. sapiens DNA. There is still controversy around the 'out of Africa' theory. And so on.

how much do we know about each species we have unearthed? — Gregory

Often precious little. Denisovans (who original ancestor, Dennis, lived a long while ago) are known only from a very small number of fragments, the remainder is based on DNA analysis.

each species has many many features that contribute to survival so to prove progression you would have to know all the adaptive survival mechanism of each ring in the evolution to prove there is increase in survivability. — Gregory

h. sapiens survived, that's unarguable, although whether we survive 'the anthropocene' is still an open question, regrettably.

I have mixed feelings about "Neanderthals" do to the lack of fossils and the extreme lack of complete skeletal fossils and the shady happenings around the DNA testing that was done on said fossils

That's not to mention the out of Africa theory which I absolutely do not believe

That's not to mention the out of Africa theory which I absolutely do not believe — MAYAEL

It is extremely important for all to know what Mayael believes or not.

Maybe not important as the belief of one particular and specific individual, but that there is or may be a formidable voting block by those who do not believe in the out of Africa theory, which in and by itself may affect voter turnout, and election results.

Beware. Know your electorate. Your platform must not make a promise based on the alleged truth of the "out of Africa" theory, lest you be doomed at the polls.

The fossils are real no doubt but the rest of paleontology is imagination. This isn't a flaw as much as it's a challenge worthy of true genius.

There is still controversy around the 'out of Africa' theory. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that the African origin of humans is well established. What do you know (about this) that I don't.

The fossils are real no doubt but the rest of paleontology is imagination. This isn't a flaw as much as it's a challenge worthy of true genius. — TheMadFool

Aah. Our anti-science expert speaks again.

Do we know enough to say for sure what had happened or is there some wishful thinking going on? — Gregory

There are many very good, well-written books on evolution aimed at intelligent laymen. My favorites are by Stephen Jay Gould. Richard Dawkins is another good source.

The fossil record is probably the most important single source for information for geologists. The sequence of fossils has been used to help age rock deposits since the 1700s. Because it is so important, it has been studied extensively.

Aah. Our anti-science expert speaks again. — T Clark

:lol: I'm not anti-science. I'm just the 10th man.

I'm just the 10th man. — TheMadFool

Perhaps you think a little too highly of yourself.

It is my understanding that the African origin of humans is well established. What do you know (about this) that I don't. — T Clark

I think there's still some school of thought that h. sapiens might have evolved from earlier species in places other than Africa, specifically East Asia and or middle East. I don't think there's an argument that early hominid species developed anywhere but Africa. Hazy on details.

Does that give you satisfaction?

I would be more inclined to believe a out of the ocean theory instead of out of Africa

Perhaps you think a little too highly of yourself. — T Clark

Not true. The 10th man's job is to simply disagree whether or not he has good reasons to do so.

I would be more inclined to believe a out of the ocean theory instead of out of Africa — MAYAEL

What is the out of ocean theory?

So you disagree when people present good, solid arguments. Good to know. Where has this got you in life? I am not facetious. Maybe you got much farther with this than one other would expect.

↪TheMadFool So you disagree when people present good, solid arguments. Good to know. Where has this got you in life? I am not facetious. Maybe you got much farther with this than one other would expect. — god must be atheist

.I just mentioned the Israeli government's strategy of always ensuring that there's someone who refuses to believe even if there's a mountain of evidential support to point out what the Delphic Oracle, 2500 years ago, warned us against: Surety brings ruin.

Surety brings ruin. — TheMadFool

But doubt divides. In unity is force. There is no unity without surety. Time is money. If you live your life to the predictions made 2500 years ago, you must live an interesting life. "A great empire will fall." To one side it brought ruin; to the other side, victory. You concentrate on the losing side. But the winning side is just as important. Ruin is very seldom unilateral. You have to choose your position carefully. A position of betting against a winning horse is a position, but I am not sure if it brings you any success. But I may be wrong.

someone who refuses to believe even if there's a mountain of evidential support to point out what the Delphic Oracle, 2500 years ago, warned us against: Surety brings ruin. — TheMadFool

Being sure of the Delphic Oraculum's truth demands of one to be doubtful. Doubting it makes one to be sure.

This is a good paradox.

How is a life lived in the spirit of a paradox?

Being sure of the Delphic Oraculum's truth demands of one to be doubtful. Doubting it makes one to be sure.

This is a good paradox.

How is a life lived in the spirit of a paradox? — god must be atheist

The paradox in the Delphic Oracle's words, "surety brings ruin" isn't as interesting or important as the honesty that it exudes.

The paradox in the Delphic Oracle's words, "surety brings ruin" isn't as interesting or important as the honesty that it exudes. — TheMadFool

But it has made you into being a liar. Where is the honesty and virtue in that?

But it has made you into being a liar. Where is the honesty and virtue in that? — god must be atheist

All TPFians are liars! Chew on that, god must be atheist.

All TPFians are liars! Chew on that, god must be atheist. — TheMadFool

Whoa... where is the tenth man? You are supposed to be OPPOSING all the points, not agree with them.

Whoa... where is the tenth man? You are supposed to be OPPOSING all the points, not agree with them. — god must be atheist

The assumptions from which the above statement follows doesn't appeal to me! G'day!

I bet they don't. A tenth man's day is not always honky-dory. BTW, I didn't use any facts or assumptions that you hadn't provided. But that's okay, I won't resent your bitterness.

I bet they don't. A tenth man's day is not always honky-dory. BTW, I didn't use any facts or assumptions that you hadn't provided. But that's okay, I won't resent your bitterness — god must be atheist

Good! Thank you!

Why not more evidence? only a tiny portion of fossil-bearing rock has been, or can be investigated. Most of the fossil-bearing rock are too deeply buried under over-burden. — Bitter Crank

This is actually more complicated than that.

The complications arise from the earth being quite old at 5781 years (per the most accurate calculations, although there is some debate). The animals were created suddenly on the 6th day following creation followed by an immediate cessation of all creative activity on the 7th day.
Those remnants of day 6 would be deeply buried under almost 6000 years of dirt, leaves, and illegal dumpings. 1656 years after those events, a significant flood occurred, killing all but a few samples of each animal, and so each animal species had to start afresh. The mud, debris, and beer cans from that flood further buried the animals and now it's extremwly hard to locate them, although as evident from your example, with perseverance, they can find all sorts of things if they look long enough, including toothy German birds.

Not true. The 10th man's job is to simply disagree whether or not he has good reasons to do so. — TheMadFool

I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of the 10th man, although that does explain a lot about some of your ideas.

I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of the 10th man, although that does explain a lot about some of your ideas. — T Clark

What's the role of the 10th man?

I'll go first. A certain event that transpired in the Middle East sometime in the '70s convinced the Israeli top brass that being in agreement threat of attack was zero in no way implies/implied that an attack wouldn't take place. In fact Israel was attacked despite the consensus among its leaders that it wouldn't be. That too given strong evidence that its enemies were not making any suspicious moves.

Thus,

1. There was absolutely no reason (no evidence) to suspect an attack.

2. Everyone that mattered were in total agreement that 1.

and yet,

3. There was an attack.

As you can see, either there was an intelligence failure or there was none and the leaders simply failed to recognize the danger.

Intelligence is not an exact science you know - too many variables as some might say. In other words, good intelligence is rare or perhaps even nonexistent.

So, where can we intervene to prevent such catastrophes?

At the level of decision-making bodies. We need to put a person in them who will act as the devil's advocate, who'll refuse to follow the herd and stubbornly refrain from giving his nod of approval to a decision that all but faer endorse.

I suppose the point of all this, in philosophical terms, is it's good to have a diehard skeptic on the team. An in-depth analysis of the 10th man idea will spread out into epistemology, logic, etc. I suppose.

In the end, it's about not being caught with your pants down ( :lol: I wish I'd been caught off guard like that. It would've been something to brag about. :rofl:) and not being lulled into a sense of false security.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. — Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus