If the difference between species is largely quantum, where are the inbetweens in the fossil record?

Question

There are over ten million species, yet only several thousand types of fossils. Big disconnect, no? There must be transitional species that died out because they weren't the fittest? Evolution, maybe is not the big idea that scientists think it is?

Answer 1

Although I have the same question in at least some of the cases, one must realize that absence of evidence is rarely evidence. There are whole civilizations that I'm sure existed that we are unaware of simply because we haven't managed to find their remnants yet. Not all bones fossilize, and depending on the numbers of a given species, it can be a real crapshoot on finding any given species. While the transitional fossils may not have been found yet, it doesn't mean they aren't there.

Answer 2

The big problem with fossils it is harder to see all of the details that are used to describe different species.

For example two birds with different color feathers but otherwise very similar are usually called different species. On the other hand with fossils we can almost never tell what color the feathers were.

Also with existing species we can tell how variable an organism is. For example dogs are all the same species because they are able to breed with each other. However if one only had dog skeletons, it would be difficult to say that they are the same. Therefore when looking at extinct animals people tend to group a lot of similar things together because they may be the same species because they are somewhat similar.

Finally many species are very rare. Complete fossils are also rare. Most extinct species just did not leave behind fossils that have been found and identified yet.

Answer 3

In the millions of species you are counting, there is a high percentage of those that do not leave fossils or do not leave differentiated fossils. While the two dozen or more finche species on the Galapagos Islands can in some cases be differentiated by size and shape of beaks (and the food they can eat) which would show up in fossil evidence, a researcher looking at a fossil collection of similar birds might not differentiate them if found together in a rock from a former mud site. And worms and other soft bodied animals, which make up a million species are very poor at leaving fossils.
And don't forget that fossils are not a very good reference - it is required that the animal fall where a fossil can form - tar, mud, shallow water - then have circumstances for the bones to get trapped before being scattered by weather or predators. Then the material formed must not be destroyed by the shifts in the earth as time passes including erosion. We know that in some areas, thousands of feet of rock have been eroded because those feet exist a few miles away, but two layers separated at one site by that rock sit on top of each other at a second site.
And finally, people must come by and discover the bones when they are partly eroded, but before they are destroyed or must find the fossils in quarried rock before it is installed or crushed.
We are lucky to have the fossils we have today.

Answer 4

maybe that's the case. they didn't make it enough to spread their species. they were too small, slow, easy to eat, and no defense. evolution is great. look at us, our great minds came like this because of evolution. nature took out the dur ones and left the ones who can make tools to live.

Answer 5

they are aware of missing links, and they are in process of finding more fossils. Still at the end they may miss certain links in between.