Transitional Fossil Features

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?
A transitional fossil is in the eye of the beholder. The real question do we see Darwin's tree in the fossil record? The answer is no. The tree only exist in evolutionist mind.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?

We see fossil D and fossil J. Then fossil F IS a transitional fossil. But, that is not good enough. If evolution is true, then the simple idea says we SHOULD also have fossils E, F, G, H, and I. More than that, we should also see D90%E10%, D80%E20%, ... etc.

Should we not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PapaZoom
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
We see fossil D and fossil J. Then fossil F IS a transitional fossil. But, that is not good enough. If evolution is true, then the simple idea says we SHOULD also have fossils E, F, G, H, and I. More than that, we should also see D90%E10%, D80%E20%, ... etc.

Should we not?

The theory of evolution says nothing about the rate of fossilization, or our chances of finding a specific fossil species after searching such a tiny percentage of the fossil bearing strata on Earth. All the theory of evolution says is what types of creatures were alive in the past, but nothing about fossilization.

Darwin spent an entire chapter explaining why the imperfect geologic record results in an imperfect fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
A transitional fossil is in the eye of the beholder. The real question do we see Darwin's tree in the fossil record? The answer is no. The tree only exist in evolutionist mind.

Then show us how the phylogenies based on the morphology of living and fossil species do not stand up to statistical tests. Here are some references for you:

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We see fossil D and fossil J. Then fossil F IS a transitional fossil. But, that is not good enough. If evolution is true, then the simple idea says we SHOULD also have fossils E, F, G, H, and I. More than that, we should also see D90%E10%, D80%E20%, ... etc.

Should we not?

This is Zeno's Paradox-lite. It's true that if basically every animal that died produced a fossil, one would expect to be able to find all of the intermediates between any two species (up and down the tree). But not every animal produces a fossil. If, to use your example, we have fossils D and J, we can look for E, F, G, H, and I, but we shouldn't expect to find very many of them.

That said, there are sometimes relatively smooth sequences for closely related species that are alive, today. We've recovered a ton of intermediates between humans and chimpanzees, for example. But we only diverged about 6 million years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
A transitional fossil is in the eye of the beholder. The real question do we see Darwin's tree in the fossil record? The answer is no. The tree only exist in evolutionist mind.
Why would we see a tree of modern organisms in the fossil record??
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?

I have explained to you all many times what features a transitional fossil would have, yet you constantly ignore it and propose fantasy. There are no transitional fossils, just as there are no transitional species between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. If no transitional fossils exist, then how could anyone explain to you what they look like since they do not exist? As a creationist I expect them to have no features - since they do not exist.

When a Chinese person mates with an African person and an Afro-Asian race comes into being, there are no transitional states between the Chinese or the African and the Afro-Asian. Why must you keep insisting we ignore how life propagates as per empirical observations??????

In a creationist viewpoint, I expect exactly what we see.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/de/20/aa/de20aa1f035317c491edf38fd24f82a8.jpg

But we can not even consider the ones between the first and the last as transitional in your meaning of the word (i.e., caused by evolution through mutation) because we know it occurred by breed mating with breed producing new breeds through recessive and dominant traits. So if you mean transitional as caused by one species evolving through mutation into another species - none exist? If you mean transitional as in the breed before the current breed (which always remains that breed) within the species, then exactly what we see?

So first what do you mean when you say transitional?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I have explained to you all many times what features a transitional fossil would have, yet you constantly ignore it and propose fantasy. There are no transitional fossils, just as there are no transitional species between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. If no transitional fossils exist, then how could anyone explain to you what they look like since they do not exist. As a creationist I expect them to have no features - since they do not exist.

When a Chinese person mates with an African person and an Afro-Asian race comes into being, there are no transitional states between the Chinese or the African and the Afro-Asian. Why must you keep insisting we ignore how life propagates as per empirical observations??????
The question was if they did exist what would features would you expect them to have. You're basically saying that since they don't exist they don't have any features to expect.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?
Any plant, animal, or human being that ever lived, lived between 4004 BC and AD 2015.

Any plant, animal, or human being that ever died, died between 4004 BC and AD 2015.

Any fossil found anywhere, is representative of something that existed between 4004 BC and AD 2015.

Intermediate, transitional, one-of-a-kind, or otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The question was if they did exist what would features would you expect them to have. You're basically saying that since they don't exist they don't have any features to expect.

No the question was :
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?

And has been answered. Stick to the subject of the OP please.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Yet you didn't describe those features in your post.

Because none exist to describe in your meaning of the word. There is no evolution of one species into another through mutation. There is only breed mating with breed producing new breeds - as per empirical observation.

But if you insist, a transitional of an Afro-Asian would look like both an African and an Asian, since that is their ancestors. There must be the Asian and there must be the African - not a singular thing, but a "pair."
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Because none exist to describe in your meaning of the word. There is no evolution of one species into another through mutation. There is only breed mating with breed producing new breeds - as per empirical observation.

But if you insist, a transitional of an Afro-Asian would look like both an African and an Asian, since that is their ancestors. There must be the Asian and there must be the African - not a singular thing, but a "pair."

We're talking about fossils. Posters have presented what they claim to be transitional fossils in numerous threads. Creationists say that they aren't really transitional fossils. Why aren't they transitional? What features does a FOSSIL need to be considered transitional?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So....features?
"Transitional fossils" is a human concept that takes the place of creation.

Evolutionists make the rules and set the guidelines as to what constitutes a "transitional fossil."

To challenge [instant] creationists to identify features of something that doesn't exist is like I issuing a challenge to show evidence for an apple created ex nihilo.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
"Transitional fossils" is a human concept that takes the place of creation.

Evolutionists make the rules and set the guidelines as to what constitutes a "transitional fossil."

To challenge [instant] creationists to identify features of something that doesn't exist is like I issuing a challenge to show evidence for an apple created ex nihilo.

It's not a challenge, just a question.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I have explained to you all many times what features a transitional fossil would have, yet you constantly ignore it and propose fantasy.

Nowhere do you describe what features a fossil would need in order to convince you it was transitional.

There are no transitional fossils, just as there are no transitional species between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook.

Where did the Husky come from? Shouldn't there be transitional populations between the wolf and husky?

If no transitional fossils exist, then how could anyone explain to you what they look like since they do not exist?

How do you know they don't exist if you don't know what one would look like?

As a creationist I expect them to have no features - since they do not exist.

So a fossil has to be an amorphous blob in order for you to accept it as a transitional fossil?

When a Chinese person mates with an African person and an Afro-Asian race comes into being, there are no transitional states between the Chinese or the African and the Afro-Asian.

There were transitional populations between modern Chinese populations and their African ancestors.

But we can not even consider the ones between the first and the last as transitional in your meaning of the word (i.e., caused by evolution through mutation) because we know it occurred by breed mating . . .

You know no such thing.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?
I know this one! Crocoduck, because evolutionists have been searching for these for hundreds of years, because theirs billions.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟59,306.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
If no transitional fossils exist, can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have? As a creationist what do YOU expect a transitional fossil to look like?

As I understand it, that's the wrong question. The question should be, "Why don't we find an abundance of transitional fossils given that there should be evidence-a-plenty given the need for so many changes over time with respect to body plans?"
 
Upvote 0