Creationists need to explain the clear examples of hominoid evolution.

[Oxyaena]

This post is mostly directed towards creationists who argue that there
are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. On the contrary,
however, I believe that one of the best documented cases of transitional
fossils IN THE WHOLE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD is that of the apes, or
/hominoidea/. The first "apes" in the fossil record appear around 30 Ma,
in the early Oligocene of Egypt. They are found in the Fayum deposit,
which, although found in a desert today, was 30 Ma a tropical rainforest
situated on the then present coast line.

They are represented by /Oligopithecus/, /Parapithecus/, and
/Propliopthecus/*. Later, in the Early Miocene, in East Africa, we see
the next stage in ape evolution, represented by /Proconsul/ and
/Afropithecus/, these "apes" show features transitional between
monkeys** and modern apes. Even further in the fossil record, we have a
diversity of apes, found across Asia, Europe, and Africa.

The most famous of these apes, /Dryopithecus/ and /Sivapithecus/***
represent the two main branches of modern day hominids, the Ponginae and
Homininae; the Ponginae represented by /Pongo/ (orangutans) and
everything more closely related to them than Hominins, /Pan/ and
/Gorilla/. The Homininae represented by hominins, /Pan/ and /Gorilla/
and everything more closely related to them than /Pongo/.

Now for the creationists: how can YOU explain how there are no
transitional fossils IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FOSSIL RECORD when I JUST
DETAILED MANY EXAMPLES OF THEM DATING FROM THE OLIGOCENE TO MIOCENE
EPOCHS. You must account for them, and I WANT REAL ANSWERS, NOT
BULLSHIT, AD HOC EXPLANATIONS.

Notes:

* Propliopithecus may be more closely related to New World Primates than
apes, but that's open for debate.

** Monkeys aren't a monophyletic clade.

*** Everybody may have heard of /Ramapithecus/, the supposed ancestor of
hominins, but more recent fossil finds throw doubt on this claim.

[John Harshman]

Post by Oxyaena
This post is mostly directed towards creationists who argue that there
are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. On the contrary,
however, I believe that one of the best documented cases of transitional
fossils IN THE WHOLE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD is that of the apes, or
/hominoidea/. The first "apes" in the fossil record appear around 30 Ma,
in the early Oligocene of Egypt. They are found in the Fayum deposit,
which, although found in a desert today, was 30 Ma a tropical rainforest
situated on the then present coast line.
They are represented by /Oligopithecus/, /Parapithecus/, and
/Propliopthecus/*. Later, in the Early Miocene, in East Africa, we see
the next stage in ape evolution, represented by /Proconsul/ and
/Afropithecus/, these "apes" show features transitional between
monkeys** and modern apes. Even further in the fossil record, we have a
diversity of apes, found across Asia, Europe, and Africa.
The most famous of these apes, /Dryopithecus/ and /Sivapithecus/***
represent the two main branches of modern day hominids, the Ponginae and
Homininae; the Ponginae represented by /Pongo/ (orangutans) and
everything more closely related to them than Hominins, /Pan/ and
/Gorilla/. The Homininae represented by hominins, /Pan/ and /Gorilla/
and everything more closely related to them than /Pongo/.
Now for the creationists: how can YOU explain how there are no
transitional fossils IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FOSSIL RECORD when I JUST
DETAILED MANY EXAMPLES OF THEM DATING FROM THE OLIGOCENE TO MIOCENE
EPOCHS. You must account for them, and I WANT REAL ANSWERS, NOT
BULLSHIT, AD HOC EXPLANATIONS.
* Propliopithecus may be more closely related to New World Primates than
apes, but that's open for debate.
** Monkeys aren't a monophyletic clade.
*** Everybody may have heard of /Ramapithecus/, the supposed ancestor of
hominins, but more recent fossil finds throw doubt on this claim.

You have the wrong target, since nobody reads sci.bio.paleontology.
Maybe you should try talk.origins instead.

By the way, "monophyletic clade" is one of my pet peeves. It's like
saying "round circle". Clades are monophyletic by definition.

[Oxyaena]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Oxyaena
This post is mostly directed towards creationists who argue that there
are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. On the contrary,
however, I believe that one of the best documented cases of transitional
fossils IN THE WHOLE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD is that of the apes, or
/hominoidea/. The first "apes" in the fossil record appear around 30 Ma,
in the early Oligocene of Egypt. They are found in the Fayum deposit,
which, although found in a desert today, was 30 Ma a tropical rainforest
situated on the then present coast line.
They are represented by /Oligopithecus/, /Parapithecus/, and
/Propliopthecus/*. Later, in the Early Miocene, in East Africa, we see
the next stage in ape evolution, represented by /Proconsul/ and
/Afropithecus/, these "apes" show features transitional between
monkeys** and modern apes. Even further in the fossil record, we have a
diversity of apes, found across Asia, Europe, and Africa.
The most famous of these apes, /Dryopithecus/ and /Sivapithecus/***
represent the two main branches of modern day hominids, the Ponginae and
Homininae; the Ponginae represented by /Pongo/ (orangutans) and
everything more closely related to them than Hominins, /Pan/ and
/Gorilla/. The Homininae represented by hominins, /Pan/ and /Gorilla/
and everything more closely related to them than /Pongo/.
Now for the creationists: how can YOU explain how there are no
transitional fossils IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FOSSIL RECORD when I JUST
DETAILED MANY EXAMPLES OF THEM DATING FROM THE OLIGOCENE TO MIOCENE
EPOCHS. You must account for them, and I WANT REAL ANSWERS, NOT
BULLSHIT, AD HOC EXPLANATIONS.
* Propliopithecus may be more closely related to New World Primates than
apes, but that's open for debate.
** Monkeys aren't a monophyletic clade.
*** Everybody may have heard of /Ramapithecus/, the supposed ancestor of
hominins, but more recent fossil finds throw doubt on this claim.

You have the wrong target, since nobody reads sci.bio.paleontology.
Maybe you should try talk.origins instead.

Read the post below and you might have a different idea.

Post by John Harshman
By the way, "monophyletic clade" is one of my pet peeves. It's like
saying "round circle". Clades are monophyletic by definition.

Although some "clades" are paraphyletic and polyphyletic. Like for
example, "reptilia" is a paraphyletic clade because it excludes "Aves".
Sauropsida has recently replaced "reptilia".

[John Harshman]

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman

Post by Oxyaena
This post is mostly directed towards creationists who argue that there
are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. On the contrary,
however, I believe that one of the best documented cases of transitional
fossils IN THE WHOLE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD is that of the apes, or
/hominoidea/. The first "apes" in the fossil record appear around 30 Ma,
in the early Oligocene of Egypt. They are found in the Fayum deposit,
which, although found in a desert today, was 30 Ma a tropical rainforest
situated on the then present coast line.
They are represented by /Oligopithecus/, /Parapithecus/, and
/Propliopthecus/*. Later, in the Early Miocene, in East Africa, we see
the next stage in ape evolution, represented by /Proconsul/ and
/Afropithecus/, these "apes" show features transitional between
monkeys** and modern apes. Even further in the fossil record, we have a
diversity of apes, found across Asia, Europe, and Africa.
The most famous of these apes, /Dryopithecus/ and /Sivapithecus/***
represent the two main branches of modern day hominids, the Ponginae and
Homininae; the Ponginae represented by /Pongo/ (orangutans) and
everything more closely related to them than Hominins, /Pan/ and
/Gorilla/. The Homininae represented by hominins, /Pan/ and /Gorilla/
and everything more closely related to them than /Pongo/.
Now for the creationists: how can YOU explain how there are no
transitional fossils IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FOSSIL RECORD when I JUST
DETAILED MANY EXAMPLES OF THEM DATING FROM THE OLIGOCENE TO MIOCENE
EPOCHS. You must account for them, and I WANT REAL ANSWERS, NOT
BULLSHIT, AD HOC EXPLANATIONS.
* Propliopithecus may be more closely related to New World Primates than
apes, but that's open for debate.
** Monkeys aren't a monophyletic clade.
*** Everybody may have heard of /Ramapithecus/, the supposed ancestor of
hominins, but more recent fossil finds throw doubt on this claim.

You have the wrong target, since nobody reads sci.bio.paleontology.
Maybe you should try talk.origins instead.

Read the post below and you might have a different idea.

What post below?

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman
By the way, "monophyletic clade" is one of my pet peeves. It's like
saying "round circle". Clades are monophyletic by definition.

Although some "clades" are paraphyletic and polyphyletic. Like for
example, "reptilia" is a paraphyletic clade because it excludes "Aves".
Sauropsida has recently replaced "reptilia".

Wrong. Reptilia is not a clade, unless you change the definition of
either clade or Reptilia. Some people do change the definition of
Reptilia, but you are the first in my experience to change the
definition of a clade.

[Oxyaena]

Post by John Harshman
Wrong. Reptilia is not a clade, unless you change the definition of
either clade or Reptilia. Some people do change the definition of
Reptilia, but you are the first in my experience to change the
definition of a clade.

A "class" could technically count as a "clade". Apparently you need to
read up on sauropsidan phylogeny to get a better idea, in my view
"sauropsida" is a much better alternative to "reptilia".

[Tom McDonald]

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman
Wrong. Reptilia is not a clade, unless you change the definition of
either clade or Reptilia. Some people do change the definition of
Reptilia, but you are the first in my experience to change the
definition of a clade.

A "class" could technically count as a "clade". Apparently you need to
read up on sauropsidan phylogeny to get a better idea, in my view
"sauropsida" is a much better alternative to "reptilia".

Oxy taking on Harshman! I need to make a big bowl of popcorn for this
one. ;-)

[John Harshman]

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman
Wrong. Reptilia is not a clade, unless you change the definition of
either clade or Reptilia. Some people do change the definition of
Reptilia, but you are the first in my experience to change the
definition of a clade.

A "class" could technically count as a "clade". Apparently you need to
read up on sauropsidan phylogeny to get a better idea, in my view
"sauropsida" is a much better alternative to "reptilia".

A class ought to be a clade, but some of them aren't. While the recent
view is that all taxa ought to be clades, this has only been the
majority view for the last 40 years or so in most fields, and less in
some. But no, a class is not necessarily a clade, and neither is part of
the definition of the other. Of course these days Linnean ranks are
often considered an obsolete concept.

I agree that Reptilia is too associated with its traditional definition
and should be abandoned. Both Amniota and Sauropsida are replacements
for different senses of the term.

[Oxyaena]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman
Wrong. Reptilia is not a clade, unless you change the definition of
either clade or Reptilia. Some people do change the definition of
Reptilia, but you are the first in my experience to change the
definition of a clade.

A "class" could technically count as a "clade". Apparently you need to
read up on sauropsidan phylogeny to get a better idea, in my view
"sauropsida" is a much better alternative to "reptilia".

A class ought to be a clade, but some of them aren't. While the recent
view is that all taxa ought to be clades, this has only been the
majority view for the last 40 years or so in most fields, and less in
some. But no, a class is not necessarily a clade, and neither is part of
the definition of the other. Of course these days Linnean ranks are
often considered an obsolete concept.

Mammalia is a clade, Aves is a clade, and Lissamphibia is a clade. I
know that Linnean ranks are often considered to be an obsolete concept,
which has largely been replaced by cladistics, although linnean taxonomy
is good for organizing.

Post by John Harshman
I agree that Reptilia is too associated with its traditional definition
and should be abandoned. Both Amniota and Sauropsida are replacements
for different senses of the term.

I think that "Reptilia" would be valid if it included Aves, and since it
is not a monophyletic taxon then the entire concept of a reptile should
be abandoned. In my view cladistics is fascinating but flawed, for
traditional morphological phylogenies are being replaced by molecular
classification.

[John Harshman]

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman

Post by Oxyaena

Post by John Harshman
Wrong. Reptilia is not a clade, unless you change the definition of
either clade or Reptilia. Some people do change the definition of
Reptilia, but you are the first in my experience to change the
definition of a clade.

A "class" could technically count as a "clade". Apparently you need to
read up on sauropsidan phylogeny to get a better idea, in my view
"sauropsida" is a much better alternative to "reptilia".

A class ought to be a clade, but some of them aren't. While the recent
view is that all taxa ought to be clades, this has only been the
majority view for the last 40 years or so in most fields, and less in
some. But no, a class is not necessarily a clade, and neither is part of
the definition of the other. Of course these days Linnean ranks are
often considered an obsolete concept.

Mammalia is a clade, Aves is a clade, and Lissamphibia is a clade. I
know that Linnean ranks are often considered to be an obsolete concept,
which has largely been replaced by cladistics, although linnean taxonomy
is good for organizing.

Post by John Harshman
I agree that Reptilia is too associated with its traditional definition
and should be abandoned. Both Amniota and Sauropsida are replacements
for different senses of the term.

I think that "Reptilia" would be valid if it included Aves, and since it
is not a monophyletic taxon then the entire concept of a reptile should
be abandoned. In my view cladistics is fascinating but flawed, for
traditional morphological phylogenies are being replaced by molecular
classification.

Well, that was relatively sense-free. If we define Reptilia as being
equivalent to Sauropsida, it certainly includes Aves. But if we define
it (as was often the case in the past) as being equivalent to Amniota
(think "mammal-like reptile") it must also include Mammalia.

Cladistics is hardly flawed because of molecular phylogenies, as
molecular phylogenies form much of the basis for modern cladistic
classifications. You have perhaps confused cladistics with parsimony
analysis of morphological data.