The Fossil Record Provides Scientific Evidence for Macroevolution

Intermediate Characteristics of Transitional Fossils:Here my opponent asks why evolutionarily inferior species, such as the modern ape family, managed to survive while other evolutionarily superior “ape-men” died off; the answer is rather simple. Organisms adapt to suit their environments; therefore, neither humans nor apes are evolutionarily inferior or superior to one another – humans are better suited for their environment, while apes are better suited for theirs; to say otherwise is tantamount to saying that orange-peelers are superior to apple-peelers because orange-peelers are better at peeling oranges.Furthermore, my opponent has challenged me to list the intermediate features of all hominid fossils provided in the first found. Unfortunately, such a challenge is simply unreasonable given an 8,000 character limit; however, my opponent has nevertheless stated that he would be “shocked” to see a fossil which possessed intermediate stages of ape-to-human skulls, feet, and teeth; therefore, I shall present herein one fossil in particular which effectively meets this criterion – Australopithecus Afarensis:Skulls:The Royal Society states,“…In small-brained, bipedal Australopithecus the foramen magnum [the hole at the base of a skull into which the spinal cord connects] and occipital condyles were anteriorly sited, as in humans, but without the foramen's forward inclination.”Therefore, A. Afarensis shared a mixture of human and ape foramen magnum characteristics.Feet:As to feet, in an article entitled “Lucy Had a Spring in Her Step,” Science Magazine states:“A 3.2-million-year-old foot bone from a member of Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, reveals that this hominin was no flat foot: It had already evolved arches and a stiff midfoot similar to living humans…The bone also shows that A. afarensis had abandoned the flexible midfoot that apes use to grasp tree branches, in favor of an arch that makes upright walking more efficient [2].”Hence, it is quite obvious that the feet of A. Afarensis possessed both ape and human characteristics.Teeth:The Australian Museum lists a number of things which make the teeth of A. Afarensis intermediate between humans and apes. Just a couple of such characteristics are stated as follows:“[The] jaws and teeth [of A. Afarensis] were intermediate between those of humans and apes. [The] jaws were relatively long and narrow. In the lower jaw, the teeth were arranged in rows that were slightly wider apart at the back than at the front. In the upper jaw, the placement of the last molar results in tooth rows that curve in at the back…[The] back molar teeth were moderate in size and were human-like in having a ‘Y-5’ pattern. That is, they had five cusps arranged so that the grooves between the cusps form a Y-shape [3].”Therefore, considering all of the above listed information, I submit that Australopithecus afarensis effectively meets the criterion set by my opponent.Sustaining Transitional Fossils:Concerning the various transitional fossils mentioned in my first argument, my opponent presents various contentions challenging the legitimacy of such fossils being actual intermediates; however, such contentions, as I hope to demonstrate, are simply insufficient to support the conclusions asserted by my opponent.Australopithecines:I believe I have already shown above that Australopithecines possessed a demonstrable mixture of ape and human characteristics – they were certainly not purely ape-like as my opponent asserts. Concerning my opponent’s quote of Dr. Solly Zuckerman, the Talk.Origins website states:“Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else. Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint [4].”Furthermore, as to my opponent’s quote from Richard Leakey, such a quote was made in reference to skull 1470. At the time, Leakey was under the impression that skull 1470 belonged to Homo habilis. In full context, the quote says:“This remarkable skull confirmed two things. First, that the human ancestral line, Homo, originated much earlier than most people suspected, earlier perhaps by as much as a million years. Second, because the history of Homo goes back that far, it means that these individuals were living at the same time as some of the earliest australopithecines, making it unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines--cousins, yes, but descendants, no.” (Origins 1977)Concerning this, rationwiki.org states:“The actual quote from Origins, then, indicates the authors' belief that although humans did not evolve directly from Australopithecus we did evolve from a common ancestor…It should be noted that since the writing of Origin skull 1470 has been determined to be a member of the species Homo rudolfensis and to be more recent than original estimates, thus making it more likely that Australopithecus is in fact our ancestor [5].”Therefore, my opponent’s quotes are outdated and taken out of context.Habilines:It seems my opponent is making the assertion that Homo habilis was human; however, such an assertion couldn’t be further from the truth.Habilines possessed various characteristics which differed significantly from humans (such as longer arms, larger jaws, heavier brow ridges, etc. [6]) Moreover, anyone can tell the difference simply by looking at the skull of a Habiline:Figure 1.0 Provided by http://www.macroevolution.net...Neanderthals: Although my opponent asserts that Neanderthals were humans (they’re actually more of a subspecies of humans) there exists numerous differences between Neanderthals and modern day humans, including heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, etc [7].Eohippus:My opponent asserts that the Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is nothing more than a hyrax; however, as can be seen from the below image, such is simply not the case:Figure 1.1 Provided by http://www.talkorigins.com...Concerning my opponent’s quote of Francis Hitching, it is well known that such a man is nothing more than a liar and a charlatan who lacks any scientific credentials whatsoever; he has claimed that he is a member of the Royal Archeological Institute, that Stephen Jay Gould co-authored his book, and that Richard Dawkins supports his work – all such claims have been proven false; hence, Francis Hitching can in no wise be quoted as a reliable source [8].Cambrian Explosion:Here my opponent claims that the fossil record is more consistent with creation rather than evolution. To support such a claim, my opponent mentions the so-called “Cambrian Explosion,” stating that there are no transitional fossils of organisms found above the layers of the Cambrian. Nevertheless, my opponent’s claims are utterly and demonstrably false; for example, intermediate fossils between arthropods and worms (called lobopods) have been found in the Cambrian [9].I certainly don’t mean to say that the Cambrian record isn’t incomplete – it is; however, there exists several plausible explanations for this; for example, the Skeptic’s Dictionary states:“[One] explanation [for the Cambrian explosion] is that the earth was a frozen snowball [due to the ice age] until about the Cambrian Period and that sudden melting brought about a "climate shock" that triggered the evolution of multi-cellular animals. [10].”My opponent raises a few other minor points (such as gene exresstion, the survival of less intelligent species over smarter ones, etc); however, I've ran out of room.In conclusion, I again submit that the fossil records supports macroevolution.[1] http://www.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...[2] http://news.sciencemag.org...[3] http://australianmuseum.net.au...[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...[5] http://rationalwiki.org...[6] http://www.talkorigins.org...[7] Ibid.[8] Ibid.[9] Ibid.[10] http://www.skepdic.com...