The Fossil Record Provides Scientific Evidence for Macroevolution

Sustaining Neanderthals as a Human Sub-Species:Here my opponent mentions that Neanderthals communicated and created tools just as efficiently as homo sapiens sapiens at the time, and therefore concludes that they were most likely identical to modern-day humans; however, the position I'm advocating is that Neanderthals exhibit both anatomical and genetic differences which distinguish them from Homo sapiens sapiens. The fact that they possessed impressive craftsmanship skills or were capable (to some extent) of communication is simply irrelevant to my case.The reason I say Neanderthals were only capable of communication to a certain extent is due to the shape of the Neanderthal's larynx, which is highly indicative of limited elocution [1]. The hyoid bone found in Neanderthals is indeed evidence of speech; however, it's certainly not enough to establish complex communication [2].The evidence that Neanderthals were unique from modern-day humans lies simply in the fact that their skeletal makeup is notably dissimilar from that of our own [3], as well as the fact that their mitochondrial DNA differs significantly [4]. In the first round of this debate, my opponent did raise one criticism against the mtDNA argument which I unfortunately never had room to address; therefore, I shall do so now.Simply put, my opponent attempts to make the case that because morphological differences between humans and chimpanzees are due to gene expression, Neanderthals may have been identical to Homo sapiens sapiens due to the manner in which their genes were expressed, despite the fact that the genes themselves were significantly different. In fact, my opponent further went on to make the case that the behavior of Neanderthals is actually evidence that their genes were expressed in a manner consistent with Homo sapiens sapiens.Unfortunately, this argument completely ignores the point at hand. If Neanderthals are truly Homo sapiens sapiens as my opponent suggests, then why are their genes significantly different? Whether or not the said genes of both species are expressed in a similar fashion is completely irrelevant to the fact that the genes themselves differ to such an extent as to conclusively demonstrate separateness of species [5]. It's as simple as that.Is my opponent truly making the case that despite considerable gene differences (not to mention anatomical dissimilarities), Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens are actually the same type of human? With all due respect, such an assertion is simply absurd, which is precisely why no reputable scientist subscribes to such an idea.As to the anatomical differences between the two species, I've provided a video at the top of this post which discusses some of the dissimilarities found in the skulls, including different noses, brow ridges, face shapes, and brain capacities.My opponent also attempts to argue that some modern-day humans exhibit cranial features similar to that of Neanderthals. Unfortunately, showing us the faces of a few living people is simply insufficient to make a compelling point; my opponent is going to need to provide images of actual skulls if he wishes to go anywhere with his argument.Survival of the Fittest Isn't Survival of the Smartest:My opponent again raises the point that less intelligent species were able to outlive the more intelligent Neanderthals. What my opponent simply fails to realize is that survival of the fittest doesn't always mean survival of the smartest. What it ultimately comes down to is which species was better adapted to their environment.Let me provide one simple example. Cockroaches possess an incredible resistance to radiation exposure; therefore, in a situation where a human and a cockroach are exposed to radiation, chances are good that the cockroach is going to out-live the human, despite the fact that the human is significantly smarter; therefore, it ultimately comes down to which species is better equipped to face their environment, not necessarily which one is more intelligent.Sustaining Archaeopteryx as a Transitional Fossil:Contrary to my opponents claims, Archaeopteryx possess numerous reptile-like features which are absent in modern-day birds. Such features are strongly indicative of reptile-to-bird transition.One article on the Talk Origins website lists 23 reptilian features found on Archaeopteryx. Some such features include:1. Lack of a bill2. Trunk region vertebra are not fused, as in all other modern birds3. Neck attaches to skull from the rear (as in dinosaurs), not from below as in modern birds4. Possesses teeth, unlike any other modern bird5. Nasal opening separated from the eye by a large hole, as is typical with reptiles, but not birds6. Various bones, including foot bones, hand bones, and tail vertebra aren't fused, as in modern birds.Much more can be said of archaeopteryx to support its status as a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds; however, my character limit would not suffice.The full list can be found at http://tinyurl.com....Lastly, I respectfully request that my opponent provide sources that I can actually access and read for myself.Zuckerman and the Scientific Abandonment of his Position:I will attempt to cover this point briefly. In short, my opponent argues that a number of modern-day scientists still accept Solly Zuckerman's position on A. Afarensis bipedality. I hope to refute the examples he's provided herein; the following quotes are from the Talk Origins website:Charles Oxnard:"Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are...Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is 'an overwhelming body of evidence', based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work [6]."Randall Susman and Jack Stern:"Stern and Susman do claim Lucy was arboreal. They also claim she was bipedal, although probably not walking identically to humans. The differences may have been bioenergetic, or a lesser amount of extension in the knee or hip. These differences are certainly not dramatic enough to preclude the idea that Lucy was evolving towards full-time human bipedality, and in fact Stern and Susman consider her to be an excellent example of a transitional form [7]."William Jungers:"Jungers does not say or even imply that Lucy did not walk upright. Quite the opposite, in fact. His paper says: 'Diagnostic details of the knee joint and bony pelvis of A. afarensis are compelling indicators of a bipedal adaptation [8].'"Russell Tuttle:In my research, I could find nothing which even slightly suggests that Russell Tuttle ascribes to the position of Solly Zuckerman. The page from "Lucy's Child" which my opponent uses as a source only speaks of the fact that Tuttle believes the Laetoli footprints were not made by A. Afarensis (although other scientists beg to differ); it says nothing of bipedality [9].My opponent has also raised further contentions concerning the Cambrian explosion; however, I will have to try and find room to discuss that matter in the next round, as I've unfortunately exhausted my character limit.http://www.youtube.com...[1] http://news.softpedia.com...[2] http://sjohn30.tripod.com...[3] http://www.godandscience.org... (I highly recommend visiting this source)[4] http://tinyurl.com... [Smithsonian Institute][5] Ibid.[6] http://www.talkorigins.org...[7] http://www.talkorigins.org...[8] http://www.talkorigins.org...