Thanks Bex,



No reluctance, Bex, just lack of fossils. For now. Unlike CTD, I don't make stuff up out of thin air (like "skunk funk") when I don't know, nor do I pretend to know things (like exponential maths) when I don't.

Curiously we also have a similar lack for many animals, but then geology predicts that the fossil record will necessarily be incomplete, because not all geologies record fossils, and if all the fossils were known there would be no question of ancestry and evolution. This is the case with the foraminifera, for instance: almost all fossils known, and a clear pattern of evolution over time, with clear evidence of speciation leading to increased diversity over time.

Evolution does not predict that we will find fossils, just that when new fossils are found that they will show evolutionary development, that they will be intermediate in form between ancestors and descendants.

Nor does the lack of fossils prove that there are no intermediate organisms: the 3 modern coelacanth species prove that lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of intermediates, and the "gap" in the coelacanth fossil record was over 60 million years.

How big the "gap" is for bats is not known, seeing as we don't know who precisely was the most likely ancestor other than (a) it was a mammal and (b) it is most likely a shrew/mole ancestor that perhaps lived in trees and ate insects.

The oldest known bat is the new 54 million year old fossil.

Working from the other end, the oldest known placental mammal (ie after the therapsids) is a small shrew like animal. From Oldest mammal is found, Origin of mammals is pushed back to 195 million years[/i]



Just for the record, 195 million years is not long after the therapsids previously discussed (and discussed in the article), so this could still be a [i]mammaliform showing many characteristics of fully developed mammals (teeth and skull, for instance). It is also intermediate in form between the late therasids and the other early mammals (the ones that are 150 million years old), so indeed it qualifies as an "intermediate variation" in form, a transitional.

It is also not likely that bats evolved before 65 million years ago AND survived the meteor impact that killed off most land and air life at the time (aquatic birds, amphibians and small burrowing animals - like shrews - survived). So we can limit the gap to a likely span of 11 million years between 65 million years ago and 54 million years ago when this latest fossil bat lived.

Of course the extinction 65 million years ago of almost all land life, including all the large and many small predators, means that evolution of new forms was not impeded by negative selection (predation) to the degree it is in a mature ecology. One could predict (and many have) that speciation rates would be high during the period following this extinction event, and indeed this is born out in the foraminifera fossils.

There is also evidence of rapid radiation of diversity in mammals, growing in size and taking on ecological niches previously occupied by now extinct organisms.

Certainly we can expect (based on existing fossil evidence) that before there were bats that there were organisms similar to the modern tree shrew.



This modern tree shrew was observed catching an insect and holding it with its paws while eating it, all while sitting on its hind legs. So the most likely ancestor to bats is a similar organism that lived 65 million years ago.

While it might be fun to speculate on how a bat ancestor might develop from such an organism, this would just be imagination until more fossils are found. I am content to wait for those fossils, and in the interim to say "we don't know" - we don't know where, and we don't know when, all we have is a general idea at this time. For the record, I don't believe that bats evolved from gliding animals similar to flying squirrels, because that does not get you flapping behavior nor webbed fingers.



What you have is a series of quote mines from various people, not the whole "letter" with the whole story. Sounds like tentative scientific caution to me. Curiously quotes do not become facts, they are just opinions in their original format, and when taken out of context like this they lose most of their real meaning. I could make lies out of the things you post - would that make my version real? true? honest?

The case for transitionals is very simple:

What a transitional organism is ...

In the observance of life today we see transitions in form from one generation to the next, We can study such trends in detail and document each step along the way, with field studies and with laboratory experiments. What we see is this:

Organism {A} - - (evolutionary path) - - Organism {B} - - (evolutionary path) - - Organism {C}

This is normal everyday observed and verified evolution by the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

When we compare traits between population {A}, {B} and {C} we see several things:

• We see change in populations over time.
• We see variation of traits in each population and
• We see that some traits are shared by population {A}, {B} and {C}
• We see that some traits are shared between population {A} and {B} but not with {C}
• We see that some traits are shared between population {B} and {C} but not with {A}
• We see that population {A} has some traits that neither {B} or {C} have
• We see that population {C} has some traits that neither {A} or {B} have
• We do NOT see traits shared between population {A} and {C} but not with {B}

What we see is that population {A} shares some traits with population {B} but not all traits, and we see that population {B} shares some traits with population (C) but not all traits.

What we see is that, of all the traits that population {A} and {C} do NOT share, we see that population {B} shares some of them with population {A} and some of them with population {C}.

In practice we also see that the most traits are shared by all three populations, and that the amount of change between populations outside the amount of variation within each population is small. This factor demonstrates homologies and hereditary relationships rather than analogies and convergent evolution.

Population {B} is intermediate between population {A} and {C} because it shares different traits with each bounding population, traits that the other bounding population does not share, while sharing traits common to all three.

By definition any organism that meets this criteria is an intermediate variety, a representative of the transition from {A} to {C}:

Population {B} is transitional if it shares some traits with {A} that are not shared with {C} AND it shares some traits with {C} that are not shared with {A} AND it shares more traits with both {A} and {C}.

This is normal everyday observed and verified evolution by the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

What this transition of form from {A} through {B} to {C} predicts is that IF this same pattern holds true for the past, that THEN we will see fossils that exhibit this pattern

What a transitional fossil is ...

By analogy from observing existing organisms:

Fossil {B} is transitional if it shares some traits with fossil {A} that are not shared with fossil\organism {C} AND it shares some traits with fossil\organism {C} that are not shared with fossil {A} AND it shares more traits with both fossil {A} and fossil\organism {C}.

We do not predict that you will find evidence of the "- (evolutionary path) - " nor does evolution predict that all {B} will be found, all that is predicted is that IF a fossil is found that it will show transitional characteristics, traits between ancestors and descendants as well as shared traits with ancestors, shared traits with descendants and shared traits with ancestors and descendants and many shared traits with both.

Thus from some ancestral shrew-like animal 65 million years ago, similar to this {A}:



... to the 54 million year old "new" bat fossil {B}:



... to this modern bat skeleton {C}



We can see that {B} is indeed intermediate between {A} and {C} but that more characteristics are shared by all three than are different between {A} and {C} AND that {B} shares some traits with {A} that it does NOT share with {C} (four claws on front arms, long tail, no echolocation) and it shares some traits with {C} that it does NOT share with {A} (long fingers being the most evident}.

Thus {B} is an intermediate fossil along the transition from non-bat to bat.

When you ask for a transitional bat fossil, this IS one. When you ask for another then you are just playing the god-of-the-gaps game like a two-year old asking "why" endlessly.

If you really want to see the next transitional fossil, you will have to wait for it to be found, because I can't "invent" it for you.

The fossil record is not the theory of evolution

Let's also be clear, that the fossil record is not the theory of evolution. The fossil record is the objective evidence of what actually happened in the deep past, there is nothing "theoretical" or subjective about the fossils, they are objects that can be weighed and measured by different people yet they get the same results. The only "alternative explanation" for the fossils is that every one is a fraud or a falsehood created with the earth to fake the earth being old, but this is not a rational explanation.

Gaps in the fossil record do not falsify evolution, because the linking evidence, like the coelacanths, can just be missing.



I agree, and that is why I don't say or do that. What science does is take an observation of existing evidence - that the change in hereditary traits in population from generation to generation is prevalent everywhere in the world today - and make a theory based on extending that observation to non-observed conditions - that evolution can explain the diversity of life as we know it from the life existing today, in history and in the fossil record and correlate it with the information we have from the genetic record.

Then we test it:

Can it explain the fossil record? Yes

What does it predict about the fossil record? That we will find transitionals between other fossils.

Are those predictions validated by new evidence? Yes.

Can the theory be falsified by fossil evidence?

Yes: if we find a life form that cannot be explained by evolution through common ancestors from other organisms, it is just too different and there are no possible ancestors. A bipedal animal with an entirely different skeletal structure from all other known life would be an example.

What does it predict about the genetic record? That it will match the fossil evidence for common ancestry exactly.

Can the theory be falsified by genetic evidence?

Yes: if we find a life form that cannot be explained by evolution through common ancestors from other organisms, it is just too different and there are no possible ancestors. An animal with an entirely different DNA structure from all other known life would be an example.

But those are highly unlikely events! That's not fair ...

Sorry, reality doesn't hand out favors ... nor is it ever "fair" to any belief.



And I notice that you failed to provide a single piece of evidence by which the validity of the "fossils" from known fraud Harum Yahya could be tested.

I can tell you this: they do not look like normal fossils, so yes, I am skeptical, however I am willing to look at more evidence about these fossils if you can present it. As I said before:



This kind of information IS available for any of the scientifically documented fossils listed here, so it should be available if the source material IS scientifically valid.

Perhaps your "hope in the fossils being" true is too evident in your ready acceptance of them, in spite of the source being questionable at best: you seem unwilling to look and see if they can be validated, a step any honest person should take before repeating them. Excuse me while I remain skeptical of these pictures:



I would not want to confuse the pictures with the actual evidence that should exist if the picture is real. You will also excuse me if I ignore CTD's inane mistaking the picture for the evidence. I trust you will do better.

Enjoy.