Evolution question?

Question

Is there any fosilized evedence of any living creature changing from one thing to another? For example what was a dog before a dog and before that, all the way down to where ever it started to change from something else to a dog?

If this prosses took millions of years there should be some kind of evidence of this transformation taking place.

Answer 1

there are no documented "missing links" or so forth, there are species of animals that are assumed to be what other animals evolved from but there is nothing but small amounts of circumstantial proof

Answer 2

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean when you say that there should be some evidence of this taking place. There are plenty of intermediate fossils linking modern animals to their ancestors, despite what creationists say. Dogs are the descendants of wolves. I don't know what wolves were before that.

As far as how detailed the procession is, I don't know. I'm not a biologist. Most organisms don't fossilize, and so we don't have a record of every single generation. There is plenty of evidence for evolution besides fossils, though, including changes that have been directly observed by scientists.

FYI to Jenn, you obviously are completely ignorant of the whole concept. First of all, evolution is a slow process, so you won't be able to see dramatic changes in short time. The entire amount of time since humans became civilized is the blink of an eye on an evolutionary scale. Second of all, as I mentioned, there have been small changes that have been observed by scientists, such as in finches and fruit flies. You can insist on making a distinction between micro and macro evolution if you like, but there is no meaningful qualitative distinction between them. It's just a quantitative matter of degrees. Try reading about something before commenting on it.

Answer 3

I can't help but wonder if you're a creationist anyway in which case no factual evidence will impress you - you'll just quote the bible as if its 'inerrant' and stick your head further in to the sand.

You say a living creature 'changing from one thing to another' - do you honestly think a cat ever gave birth to a dog? Is that what you're looking for. That never happened, and I've studied evolutionary biology extensively - what happens is small change, imagine a forerunner to cats and dogs, it migrates in to two different habitats, in one, it becomes more adapted to chase animals for long periods of time over land and learns to do so in packs, this behaviour will not encourage any particular mutations but it will select certain ones. If one is born with large claws and shorter legs it might be better for hunting in trees - but it will die out because thats the wrong adaptation for this species.

Maybe the other group took to the trees, or merely stayed in the trees. They mostly stayed small, had sharper claws for a grip, didnt have to rely on long marathons to bring down their prey but swift ambushes - there will be different selection pressures. No animal is ever going to be born that is so freakish because of a mutation that it cant breed with others of its kind - speciation is a gradual process.

I hope you understand a bit better now.

Answer 4

First, I must comment on Jenn's answer first. Of course we do see evolution right now. Examples include the current news on the evolution of the flu virus, including the current concern over bird flu. Why would we worry if it did not evolve and why would we get flu shots every year? Also, strains of HIV have evolved 'in our time' to resist certain treatments. Many diseases evolve in very real time and evidence in recorded human history certainly confirms this both by biological samples and descriptions of diseases throughout history.

As for dog evolution, dogs have been around for millions of years. The earliest ancestors of dogs originally evolved about 200 million years ago from reptiles. Prehistoric remains of dogs are few and far between but the dental pattern of modern day dogs is similar to that found in fossilised creodonts - primitive fish-eating mammals which lived about 50 million years ago, but this genetic line failed to survive and there are no direct descendants today. At the same time another group of animals the miacids also had dog-like cutting teeth - they were small forest-dwelling creatures (not unlike polecats) and these evolved into the carnivores of today - including some dogs. The fossil record shows three main groups of dogs. The first group evolved in North America about 40 million years ago. Fossil evidence tells us that these first dogs looked like a cross between a weasel and fox. The name Hesperocyon (means "western dog). The hesperocyonines became extinct about 15 million years ago. The second group, the borophagines, began flourishing about 34 million years ago and were larger hyena-like animals with huge jaw muscles and sturdy teeth. They became extinct about 2.5 million years ago. The third group, the canines, includes the extinct dire wolf and all living species of canines. This group occurred only in North America until about 7 million years ago, when some species crossed a land bridge to Asia.

The canid family tree includes 35 living species. Though there are a few lone lineages, there are three main groups: South American zorros (foxes); Wolf-like canines, including the coyote, jackals, wolves, and dogs; Fox-like canines, including the red fox and its relatives. The domestic dog's closest kin is the gray wolf (Canis lupus). Fossil and genetic evidence confirms that all dogs are the descendants of wolves. In fact, skeletons of the earliest dogs and their wild wolf cousins can be tough to tell apart. Some of the key differences that scientists look for are: Dog skulls often have a more prominent "stop" (the break in the downward slope from the forehead to the tip of the nose). Dogs' teeth are squatter than those of similar-sized wolves.

I hope this answers your question - the fact is that the dog did evolve over millions of years and the fossil record has a rich history to tell about how this occurred - both the successful and the extinct lines are recorded.

Answer 5

Well, the process of evolution is said to be gradual, so it is very hard to notice. Kind of like a tree growing: You can't WATCH it grow, but if you leave it for 3 years, then come back, you will notice.

There IS some evidence tho.
For instance, some snakes have extra, unused appendages, that seem to have been legs.

Also, dogs have a "dew claw" because over time, they started walking on their toes instead of feet. Earlier in time, they used this claw just as they used all their other claws: for walking!

The evidence IS there, just very subtle.

Answer 6

there are litterally thousands of examples of intermediate, transitional species in the fossil record. The 99.9% of random mutations which you state were detrimental to the species did not get a chance to reproduce in significant numbers, the .01%(by your data) was successful and had a chance to fill the evolutionary niche it was trying to exploit. Go and visi the Galapagos island one day and see evolution for yourself. Grass on island - short neck on a tortoise, no grass only bushes - long neck on genetically the same species. That is evolution on a very short time scale, maybe a few hundred to a couple thousand years.

Answer 7

One of the best pieces of fossilized evidence of one creature changing to another is the Hominid fossil collection. Transformation evidence is of populations, though, so do not look for linear, cartoon like evolutionary progress. Go here.

http://www.talkorigins.org

They have much on transformation evidence.

PS beware " missing link " terminology and concepts like the plague. Remember, populations evolve, individuals do not.

Answer 8

In April 2006, a fossil was found that linked fish with animals that walked on land.

'Link' Between Fish and Land Animals Found
Discovery Called Key Evidence Of Vertebrates' Ocean Origins


"Scientists yesterday reported discovering an evolutionary "missing link" between fish and land animals -- an ancient, river-dwelling predator with arm joints in its fins, an alligator-like head and ribs heavy enough to support its body on dry land.

Researchers found several fossils between four and nine feet long. The creature was a fish -- with scales, fins and gills -- but it moved its head independently of its body, could drag itself along on land as today's seals do, and may have walked..."

From NY Times:
"Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life..."

Answer 9

That's a WONDERFUL point. :D
No, there's no physical evidence, only that which scientists assume is "evolution".
I heard a good thought on evolution a couple years back:
If evolution were legitimate back when the theory first became popular, then it would still be occuring today, right? Well then why aren't we seeing any evidence of people and animals "evolving" now? How come we aren't constantly changing into a whole 'nother species, like the theory suggests? Because it's not real--there is no ACTUAL evidence to support that entire theory.
What people think is evolution is actually referred to as "adaptation". Over time, man and animals have "adapted" to their surroundings in order to live more comfortably.
(Sorry to all you evolutionists out there!) ;)

Answer 10

Yes. Fossils slowly change as time went along. They adapted to their conditions to survive. Sometime this may become a reality for humans if only the humans who can cope with a warmer climate may be able to survive. But that's a LONG way away. hopefully...

Answer 11

Yes. There are many many examples.

What amazes me are the number of creationists who are piping up saying "No there are no examples." or "A ha! Hence the great debate ..." without actually reading the other responses that are providing lots of examples.

Source 1 has many more examples:
- Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
- Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
- Transition from fishes to first amphibians
- Transitions among amphibians
- Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
- Transitions among reptiles
- Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
- Transition from reptiles to first birds

As for your specific example, there is a book "Origins of the Domestic Dog, The Fossil Record" by Olsen, S.J. (1985), University of Arizona Press, Tucson (Arizona).
Or you can check out
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm
... which relies more on genetic evidence than fossil evidence ... but it still refers to the fossils.