Question about the evolutionary tree

[nebula]

Example of the Tree

As I'm looking at the different representations of the evolutionary tree, there is one thing I continually see missing:

The infamous "common ancestor"(s).

You see two branches, but you don't see what "ancestor" they actually branched off of.

How does this make sense? If we can see ancient creatures in the fossil record, how come we cannot see the "common ancestor"?

[DC10]

Example of the Tree

As I'm looking at the different representations of the evolutionary tree, there is one thing I continually see missing:

The infamous "common ancestor"(s).

You see two branches, but you don't see what "ancestor" they actually branched off of.

How does this make sense? If we can see ancient creatures in the fossil record, how come we cannot see the "common ancestor"?

Without seeing the tree to which you refer, I think most such trees assume a common ancestor at each and every junction - thus the inverted "v" of the 2 "twigs" is where their common ancestor lies - move back towards the "trunk" and the next inverted "v" is where the next common ancestor is, etc.

[nebula]

I know that. What I am asking for is the "what"? They have on the tree ancient creatures, but none of them are represented as the "common ancestor" from which one population became one groups of creatures and another a different group of creatures.

Example, the common ancestor between amphibians and reptiles.

[Guest]

By Making Up These Stories As One Goes Along And By Mixing In Nonsensical Time Lines To Boot

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Some Men Insure Their Fables Remain Unfalsifiable And Anti-Science

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

Until That Is, The Bitter End

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:28-29

So Be Wise

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

Believe

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

I will love thee, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:1-2

Love, Joe

[DC10]

Example of the Tree

As I'm looking at the different representations of the evolutionary tree, there is one thing I continually see missing:

The infamous "common ancestor"(s).

You see two branches, but you don't see what "ancestor" they actually branched off of.

How does this make sense? If we can see ancient creatures in the fossil record, how come we cannot see the "common ancestor"?

[DC10]

I know that. What I am asking for is the "what"? They have on the tree ancient creatures, but none of them are represented as the "common ancestor" from which one population became one groups of creatures and another a different group of creatures.

Example, the common ancestor between amphibians and reptiles.

Try "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins if you're still interested in this. He doesn't give trees, but he does discuss what several common ancestors (or concestors, as he calls them) might have looked like, with accompanying pictures.

The concestor between amphibians and "reptiles" is the same, in his account, as that between us and amphibians (don't blame me, I'm just reporting it!) - "rather like a salamander but [it] probably had 5 digits on both front and back legs."

(btw - These days, with the increased use of cladistics, "reptiles" as a group tends not to be discussed as such; the clade that includes them also contains birds. Dawkins refers to the clade (reptiles + birds) as "Sauropsids", although I'm not sure how widespread this usage is. Not a topic that interests me much, I'm afraid.)

[nebula]

... he does discuss what several common ancestors (or concestors, as he calls them) might have looked like, ....

...- "rather like a salamander but [it] probably had 5 digits on both front and back legs."

So in other words, there is no common ancestor fossil found?

[DC10]

... he does discuss what several common ancestors (or concestors, as he calls them) might have looked like, ....

...- "rather like a salamander but [it] probably had 5 digits on both front and back legs."

So in other words, there is no common ancestor fossil found?

Well, as I said previously, it's not something that interests me, so I don't know what specimens are known from that period. But however would one know if one had found it?

Evolutionary theory predicts that there was one, but I doubt anyone would ever pretend they'd found it.

(Except maybe a journalist trying to sell a story, or a marketing guy trying to sell a book, or a conman trying to sell a fossil).

[nebula]

Evolutionary theory predicts that there was one, but I doubt anyone would ever pretend they'd found it.

So we agree then that this is not fact?

[LLC]

It is the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet. This is kind of off topic, but it has been brought up a lot; Evolution does not account for the emergence of life. It takes over only after life had been created.