Holes in evolution? Will address those points.
As for the Origin of Species, what constitutes a species? A wolf and a St bernard, both are dogs right? Wrong, wolves according to scientist are cannis lupis, and St Bernards are Cannis familiaris. So does that mean St bernards evolved from something different than wolves. Or tigers and Lions, they also are not the same species but are supposed to have evolved from the same origins. In biology, a species is defined as a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
Also where are all the transitional fossil forms for other animals, yes u are considering the four winged dinosaur as one, but shouldnt their be hundreds of transitional fossils, i think for scientist to say that fossils prove evolution they need to show more of these transitions than just a few feathered dinosaurs. An understanding of the process of fossilization must be had before the problem with transitional fossils (or the low numbers thereof) can be understood.
There's something called stratigraphic discontinuity. What this means is that fossil-bearing strata aren't continous. Thes e strata are used for time dating, and one strata is often found right next to a strata of a different age. Often there are long time breaks missing. This is a quote:
'For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.'
That's just the evolution within a species. Speciation is much harder to document. You ahve to realize that for something to be eligible to be used as evidence, it has to qualify as such using scientific methods. You'll need an exceptionally complete strata with many dead animals while there is *constant* and fast sedimentation. There are some sites where this is approximated (Clar's Fork) but not many.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.
Then there is the issue of finding them. it's hard enough to find a Tyrranousaurus Rex. Only Europe and North America has been adequately surveyed, and there hasn't really been so much exploring even here. I'll quote again.
'The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found. Only two continents, Europe and North America, have been adequately surveyed for fossil-bearing strata. As the other continents are slowly surveyed, many formerly mysterious gaps are being filled (e.g., the long-missing rodent/lagomorph ancestors were recently found in Asia). Of course, even in known strata, the fossils may not be uncovered unless a roadcut or quarry is built (this is how we got most of our North American Devonian fish fossils), and may not be collected unless some truly dedicated researcher spends a long, nasty chunk of time out in the sun, and an even longer time in the lab sorting and analyzing the fossils. Here's one description of the work involved in finding early mammal fossils: "To be a successful sorter demands a rare combination of attributes: acute observation allied with the anatomical knowledge to recognise the mammalian teeth, even if they are broken or abraded, has to be combined with the enthusiasm and intellectual drive to keep at the boring and soul-destroying task of examining tens of thousands of unwanted fish teeth to eventually pick out the rare mammalian tooth. On an average one mammalian tooth is found per 200 kg of bone-bed." (Kermack, 1984.)
Documenting a species-to-species transition is particularly grueling, as it requires collection and analysis of hundreds of specimens. Typically we must wait for some paleontologist to take it on the job of studying a certain taxon in a certain site in detail. Almost nobody did this sort of work before the mid-1970's, and even now only a small subset of researchers do it. For example, Phillip Gingerich was one of the first scientists to study species-species transitions, and it took him ten years to produce the first detailed studies of just two lineages (see part 2, primates and condylarths). In a (later) 1980 paper he said: "the detailed species level evolutionary patterns discussed here represent only six genera in an early Wasatchian fauna containing approximately 50 or more mammalian genera, most of which remain to be analyzed."'
Then you have to get the word out. There *are* transitional fossils out there, but amongst Creationists it is common practise to just ignore that. Often it's the scientists fault for having it in highly technical reviews that are inaccessible for the general public. But it's there. I'll use just a few examples:
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.
There are more, of course.
Here is some more stuff.
The thing with evolution is that biology is a complex science just like nuclear physics. We do not understand many aspects of it, but it seems to be working so we assume the scientists have it somewhat right. With biology however, we lack the same understanding - only now science goes against our religious beliefs. So we're not inclined to cut it any slack.
No person I've met who've studied biology has come off thinking more of creation and less of evolution as a result. The increased understanding means what seemed magic before now, understood, is logical.
Ask away though. There are some people here that aren't experts in biology but can provide you with references and so forth.
