There would not be a continuum. That was stated perfectly clearly in the quote.
Actually, there would. If every organism that ever lived was still alive, we'd have a continuum.
Denton and Linnaeus agree on the matter. THERE IS NO CONTINUUM
For the reason stated. Discrete species are largely because of the death or extinction of intermediates.
I like Free's solution. From now on, we only quote directly. And we'll asking for checkable sources if not given. That will be a great improvement.
We have the sudden appearance of a zillion new species etc in the Cambrian.
In every geologic period, in fact. The big deal in the Cambrian was the evolution of hard exoskeletons, which suddenly produced lots of fossils. But the Precambrian had many, many incomplete fossils with bits of armor, for which the otherwise soft-bodied organisms were lost. But we now know, from a variety of locations that there were Precambrian antecedents to all those species. Want to learn about them?
As you see, it's not a fact. It's an assumption that turned out to be false.
and no matter how many experts in the field say that they appear suddenly,
Well, let's take a look...
Nature 303, 415 - 418 (02 June 1983); doi:10.1038/303415a0
Two new pre-trilobite faunas from western North America
Philip W. Signor III*, Mark A. S. McMenamin†, Debra A. Gevirtzman* & Jeffrey F. Mount*
Perhaps the greatest puzzle in the history of life is the nature and cause of events comprising the Precambrian–Cambrian evolutionary radiation of Metazoa, The major stumbling blocks to resolving this puzzle are a scarcity of late Precambrian and earliest Cambrian faunas in the fossil record and difficulties in correlating the few faunas that are known. The most diverse and best-known basal Cambrian (Tommotian) faunas are from Siberia1–3, and other pre-trilobite shelly faunas are known from the UK4,5, Newfoundland6,7, Mongolia8, China9–11, Scandinavia12 and northwestern Canada13. Here we report the discovery of two new early Cambrian shelly faunas from western North America, one from Nevada and the other from Sonora, Mexico. These faunas consist of small calcitic tubes and cones, some of which are closely related to previously known fossils from other areas. Both faunas are found hundreds of metres below the first trilobite occurrences, below the first presumed trilobite trace fossils, and seem to be earliest Cambrian in age. This is the first discovery of a diverse pre-trilobite shelly fauna in the classic Precambrian–Cambrian sequence of western Nevada and the White-Inyo Mountains of California, and the first report of pre-trilobite small shelly fossils from Mexico. These new finds may lead to an understanding of the pattern and dynamics of the Precambrian–Cambrian metazoan radiation, and to improved biostratigraphical correlations of the strata recording that event.
Surprise. There's a lot more like that. Want to see some more?
all you can do is shout, boringly and predictably, 'Quote-mine'.
Apparently, that's not going to be a problem, anymore. If you quote, you'll have to use the primary source. And that will let every check it with a minimum of trouble.
Barbarian chuckles:
Entomologists would disagree with you.
On what point precisely? Yahya shows large numbers of photos of fossil insects which are exactly the same today as they were then. They have not evolved one little bit.
Well, let's take a look...
Sphecomyrma is an extinct genus of ant which inhabited the northern hemisphere of the supercontinent Laurasia approximately 80 mya in the Cretaceous.[1] It is one of the earliest known species of ant.
In 1966 a specimen of Sphecomyrma freyi was found embedded in amber which had been exposed in the cliffs of Cliffwood, New Jersey by Mr. Edmund Frey and his wife. In 1967 E. O. Wilson, F. M. Carpenter and William L. Brown, Jr. published a paper describing and naming Sphecomyrma freyi.[2] They described an ant with a mosaic of features, a mix of characteristics from modern ants and aculeate wasps. It possessed a metapleural gland, a feature unique to ants, it was wingless and possessed a petiole which was ant-like in form. The mandible was short and wasp-like with only two teeth, the gaster constricted and the middle and hind legs had double tibial spurs, wasp-like features. The antennae were, in form, midway between the wasps and ants, having a short first segment but a long flexible funiculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphecomyrma_freyi
Surprise.
Barbarian continues:
So would the Institute for Creation Research, which claims that new species, genera, and families have evolved in the last ten thousand years.
I don't care what IRC says. It matters not one bit. Evolution-convinced authorities I've quoted say no new genus has appeared in 2 million years.
As you see, opinions don't do much, do they. But I've shown you some evidence. And that's the way it should go.
So what are you going to do with them?
Use evidence. It trumps anyone's opinon, especially opinions asserted to be, but lacking a checkable source.
Barbarian observes:
You guys can't keep your stories straight. Pan troglodytes evolved in the last 2 million years. The genus Homo is about 2 million years old.
It's a documented fact. The oldest known example of Homo is about 2 million years old. Our own species refutes your claim.
Go here for a serious refutation of this nonsense:
Better yet, tell us what evidence they presented was most compelling to you.
Then we'll talk about it.
What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ...
Would you like me to show you such a series with less difference between them than is found in most species?
The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."(1)
Was. But time moves on. Let's test your belief. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.
Barbarian suggests:
Note the past tense. If I can show you a series of fossils spanning tens of millions of years, with no differences between adjacent fossils greater than is found in many species today, would you admit that you were wrong?
But you won't give us an answer? If you want to take up that challenge, put in a new thread, answer my question, and I'll show you.
And don't forget, while you're at it, to produce some nonsense about the evolution of the cetaceans from ungulates.
The evidence consists of numerous fossil transitionals, genetic data, the ungulate digestive system of whales, and of course, the occasional production of legs complete with bones, in whales.
Barbarian on the "sudden" appearance of Cambrian fauna:
People once thought so, because hard skeletons evolved at that time, but now it is clear that there were antecedents to many phyla long before the Cambrian. Would you like to learn about those?
What? Hard skeletons 'evolved'? You gotta be joking. Evolved from what? Soft-bodied creatures?!!!
Mostly from partially-scleritized creatures:
Early Cambrian lobopodian sclerites and associated fossils from Kazakhstan
Palaeontology (2003)
Volume: 46, Issue: 1, Publisher: Wiley Online Library, Pages: 93-112
Abstract
A low diversity fossil assemblage dominated by Mongolitubulus spines, from the Early Cambrian Geres Member of the Shabakhty Formation at Koksu, Malyi Karatau, Kazakhstan, enables identification of its sclerite variability within the scleritome. No other sclerotised structures could be matched with the spines, indicating that these were the only sclerotised part of the body and were periodically shed. The prominent spines of Mongolitubulus have a scale-like external ornamentation and fibrous internal structure. Possibly they armed the body of a lobopodian similar to Xenusion. The Mongolitubulus spines belong to a series of Cambrian phosphatic fossils, the other end members of which are sclerites of Microdictyon, the second most abundant component of the Koksu assemblage. The latter superficially resemble schizochroal trilobite eyes, but in life covered the dorso-lateral sides of the body segments, as is evident from complete specimens from the Chinese Chengjiang locality. A pair of sclerites of Microdictyon, representing uncompleted exuviation, from Koksu show that each hole originally contained a non-phosphatised lenticular body. This makes a compound eye nature of the Microdictyon sclerites likely, and even their homology with arthropod eyes cannot be excluded.
Surprise.
My my my! SHAZZAM! Lo and behold, billions of hardbodied creatures! How?
Sclerites turned out to be a pretty good idea. And over time, those with more coverage tended to survive. BTW, there is evidence of this in the Burgess Shale, which preserved soft body parts.
Let's suppose there are a zillion antecedents of the Cambrian animals in the pre-Cambrian. What have you succeeded in doing?
Well, it seems there weren't as many different kinds then. Hard exoskeletons opened up a lot of new opportunities.
If the laws of sigmoidal growth regulated the earlyi diversification of life, then ther is nothing special about the Cambrian explosion. It is merely the log phase of a process determined by two factors: (1) the event that initiated the lag phase well within Precambrian times, and (2) the properties of an environment that permitted sigmoidal growth.
_ Stephen Gould
Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud? p. 130
It would be worthwhile for you to read it. A lot of your questions are answered there in plain and untechnical detail.
Nothing much, really, except having to account for the origin of those! What are you going to do then?
Look at the Ediacaran fauna. Soft-bodied, trilobite-sorta things, as well as others that match with coelentrates, and others.
And from that, more primitive things. There are even earlier, and simpler eukaryotes:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/fossils-early-life-111206.html
Look in the granite basement, of course!!! Hah hah hah!
Surprise.
Barbarian suggests:
Gould is here discussing the evidence for punctuated equilibrium. But instead of you presenting carefully edited quotes, let's test your argument. Name any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. Wait. We already did that, and you guys lost.
Gould is at least honest, and trying to face the facts, which is more than I can say for you.
It's understandable that you might become frustrated. It's not O.K. to toss accusations unless you can back them up.
What's punctuated equilibrium?
Darwin talked about it. It's called "stabilizing selection." When a well-adapted population is in a stable environment, then natural selection prevents evolution, for reasons you can probably figure out for yourself.
A population, encountering a new environment, particularly a small population of them, tends to quickly evolve into several species. This is called "disruptive selection."
It is. But creationists don't approve of it.
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
This is utter nonsense, and you know it.
In fact, it's demonstrable. There are still a few cases where we don't have transitionals, but every month we find new ones. It's pretty well filled in by now. Even more important, we never find a transitional were it shouldn't be.
If there are no transitionals between species, how can there be transitionals between larger groups?
That merely means that we don't have a fossil of every species of some evolving population, but we do have a fossil for genera or higher taxa. It's a matter of finding them. Getting every single species is tough. Getting every Genus isn't so hard.
Larger groups of what? Of individual species. But there aren't any transitionals there. So, ipso facto, Gould was talking tripe.
Nope. You just jumped to a faulty conclusion.
As the fossil record shows (notice Gould's statement) extinction of intermediate forms. But don't take my word for it. Show me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional to be found. Good luck.
Oh, the bats and shrews or whatever lse you care to choose.
Bats don't seem to have evolved from shrews. But let's look at shrews, then. They are the most primitive and generalized of the mammals, and now there is this one:
Juramaia sinensis
The only thing that differentiates it from the late cynodont reptiles, is the single lower jawbone. The others are by this time disarticulated from the jaw, but still connected to the middle ear. Note the abdominal ribs and traces of cervical ribs. Aside from the jaw, this would be classified as a cynodont therapsid reptile.
A remarkable find.
