I meant that scientists have been looking at fossils at hundreds of years and it’s unlikely the overall pattern is not going to change.
The main point is that the fossil record does not provide evidence that organisms exist that fill up the gaps between families And hence any claim that such organisms existed but went extinct is speculation without evidence.
I am yet to get a clear answer on this.
Why would you think the gaps between families should be filled? Do you think the space between the branches of a tree should be filled with solid wood?
I don’t think they need to be filled. Go read the discussion to find out who said what.
@T_aquaticus says that the morphogical space between families seen today is mainly because if extinction events.
You can ask him the question.
No he didn’t say that, you are twisting his words. This is what he actually said
Do you understand in our culture most people consider quote-mining to be a form of lying?
Do you realise your “culture” is not the gold standard for everyone else?
Since I am saying that developmental bias could explain and even make it necessary for gaps to exist between families. You are asking me the wrong question.
As to “loss of transitional states” … what do you think he means.?
Sorry I didn’t realize your culture considers misrepresenting the views of others by quote-mining is an acceptable practice.
No it doesn’t.
However it doesn’t call pointing out to someone’s entire comment quote mining. I didn’t even quote it. It doesn’t excuse baselessly accusing a person after misunderstanding his position (which is whay you are doing)
As far as I understand @T_aquaticus is making two points -
If you want to add any clarity to his answer. Pls go ahead and make sure he agrees.
Right now you are just trolling.
The gaps are caused by extinction and divergent evolution between lineages. This gets into the difficult question of what “species” means in paleontology, which is not really relevant here. The loss or transformation of transitional states is a better way to think about it. This just means that we expect fossils sometimes to show us forms that connect taxa that today are widely divergent. Surely you are aware that such fossils exist and can even think of some of them. It isn’t the case that all these organisms didn’t leave fossils; some of them did. But the known fossil record is highly incomplete, though it becomes slightly less incomplete every year.
The pattern is a nested hierarchy. They also keep finding new transitional fossils that fill gaps. I agree, this pattern will continue.
Prove it. For example, there is Tiktaalik rosae which fills the gap between lobe finned fish and terrestrial tetrapods. How do you explain that?
For sake of clarity, I think this should be [phrased “which partially fills the gap”. No single fossil find can “fill” such a massive morphological gap - at least several are required. In the case of this particular gap, we luckily have a rather nice gradation of forms either side of Tiktaalik.
Yep. I’m lucky enough to know or have met several of the key researchers who’ve published on Ichthyostega and others, and it’s always fascinating talking to them about this. More new transitions are being worked on that be will published over the coming years too, it’s exciting stuff.
That’s cool to hear. The evolution of Devonian fish has long been an area ripe for discovery, so it is nice to see progress is being made. Will be looking forward to seeing these new specimens!!
