Well thats going to be a bit hard for the average bloke in the street. But I can research and look up scientists who show that some of the accepted beliefs are wrong or at least in question. One of those is with how many scientists have come out in recent times and questions darwins tree of life.
I have already addressed this multiple times now. Those scientists agree that the tree of life still applies to complex life. The tree only breaks down for the root of the eukaryote tree and for prokaryotes.
The problem is for some of the evidence is that its nots so black and white.
And yet you claim that there is not a single transitional fossil. If it isn't black and white, how can you make such a black and white judgement?
Like I mentioned with the interpretation of bones and fossils you will have x amount of scientists saying that they believe that it fits in with their view and then have some others that question that and bring up valid points. Even if the majority say it is supportive of a transition because there are some that bring up other possibilities it places doubt over the evidence and at least puts it on some shaky ground to be used as strong evidence.
The problem is that what you reference is either creationist propoganda sites, or it doesn't support what you claim.
For example, placing three transitional hominid fossils in the same species does not take away their transitional status. They are still transitional. Variations of a transitional species are still transitionals. The ability to interbreed with a transitional species does not take away their transitional status.
Because a variation can be within the same species and not a new species.
Variations within a transitional species are still transitional.
Evolution needs a progressive transition of a creature into another species. So those variations should gradually show changes that turn it into a new shape or type of creature.
You are arguing just the opposite. If there are gradual variations then you say they belong to the same species, and therefore can not be transitional. For any gradual series, you will draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the series and declare everything on one side to be an ape, and everything on the other side of the line to be human.
A gradual series is exactly what we have, and exactly what you are citing as casting doubt on the fossils being transitional.
But this is where it gets hard to tell and where I believe that scientists can misinterpret transitions. Because like you are indicating there can be a stage where you just can tell whether its a variation of the same creature or a transition.
Variations within a transitional species are transitionals.
Such as with a dog there are many shapes but they are still dogs.
According to your logic, if we dug up dog fossils that had a lot of variation then they would be considered modern humans.
Or like I said with bats there are many bats that are classed as different species but they are all still bats with bat shapes. They havnt turned into owls or lizards.
There are over a 1,000 species of bats. There is way, way more genetic differences between two bat species than there are between humans and chimps. WAY MORE!!!
So if we use bats as your limitation, then humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps is well within your limitations.
But I would have thought if a creature is transforming from one to another completely different shape that there would be some stages in between. Like a Dino to bird.
The problem is that you would just call those stages either dinos or birds by drawing an arbitrary line in the series. You would call transitionals on one side of the line "variations of dinos" and transitionals on the other side of the line "variations of birds". It is the same thing you are doing with hominid transitionals.
Would you have a stage where the wings are stumps and useless before it got to the point of functional wings. Or do the wings pop out in one generation completely working.
You would have a stage where the arms are functional, but don't provide fully powered flight.
There is still a fair amount of conjecture about what is classed as homo erectus, Neanderthal and homo sapiens.
No, there isn't. None of the studies you keep pointing to have classified H. erectus skulls as H. sapiens skulls. Even the original Neanderthal specimen found in Germany was found to be genetically different than anatomically modern humans. Since then, numerous studies have demonstrated that neanderthals and humans were different species with very little cross breeding. For example, no neanderthal mitochondrial DNA lineages survive in modern human populations. If neanderthals were just a variation of modern humans then we would expect to see these lineages at the same frequencies as other mtDNA lineages, but we don't.
Some say that they are all the same species or at least early homo sapiens fall into the same species as homo erectus and Neanderthals.
By "some" do you mean the creationists on creationist sites?
Even with the DNA evidence it has been showing that there are some similarities that make some of the separate species that scientists had categorized put into the same species.
That is false. All of the neanderthal DNA studies have demonstrated that there is very limited interbreeding which would classify them as separate species.
We just dont know definitely . . .
And yet creationists say that there are definitely no transitional fossils. Go figure.
Again, variations within a transitional species are still transitional.
There are other scientists who dont consider Australopithecine as ape to human but just ape. It is grossly like an ape and the evidence for it walking is highly contentious.
The Fall of <i>Australopithecus sediba</i>: Controversy and the Quest for Glory Cloud Claims of Human Ancestry - Evolution News & Views
Evolution news and views is not a science site. Please reference real science and not creationist propoganda.
Well when you consider that for every single species that is claimed to ever walk the earth there would be millions. So would it stand to reason that there would be billions of transitionals for each and every one.
That does not stand to reasons. There were billions of passenger pigeons at one time, but we only have a handful of known fossils, and that is for a very recent species that is present in the most easy to get to sediments. The problems only get worse as we move back in time.
If mutations are primarily non advantageous and only 1 in 10,000 are beneficial then would there be billions of failed transitions.
First, non-advantageous does not mean deleterious. Those include mutations that do not change anatomy or physiology in any way whatsoever. This is another example of how creationists use tactics to mislead their audience.
So wouldn't there be many generations of failed changes that were not taken on if it is random and chance.
No, there wouldn't. That is not how genetics work. An entire generation is not suddenly born with the all individuals having the same deleterious mutation.
If you take the Pakicetus as a transition for early whale which lived on the land. To get from that to a whale would have taken many thousands of attempts. It just didn't find the right things it needed in one generation. There would have been many generations of failed changes that just didn't work because its all based on random chance.
See above.
Digging up a creature that happens to have a few similarities to another and then making a whole line of out this is not a solid foundation as you also have to consider the differences and that there is no other real evidence like genetics to make sure it is a fact.
Hold on. If we aren't allowed to use physical similarities, then what in the world are you asking for with respect to transitionals.
Especially now that genetics is showing that the lines and trees that were made in the past are coming under question. Some creatures are being taken out of those lines because they are related to another totally unrelated line of creature and some creatures are being linked together that show no resemblance yet are closer through genetics than the animals that scientists use to say belonged together. Its still early days so we will have to wait and see. But I dont think you can say that the theory has a strong case to say its fact.
Transitional does not mean ancestral. When we say that a fossil is transitional we are not saying that it must be a direct ancestor of a living species. Those are two different things. For example, the platypus is a transitional species because it has features of both placental mammals and reptiles. However, no one is claiming that the modern platypus is a direct ancestor to every living placental mammal species.
