Transitional Fossil Features

[PapaZoom]

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

but we have plenty of fossil evidence of new and suddenly appearing body plans but no evidence in fossil form as to the precursors.

 

[HitchSlap]

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?"

For the same reasons we don't find an "abundance" of "non-transitional" fossils. Fossilization is very rare.

 

[PapaZoom]

For the same reasons we don't find an "abundance" of "non-transitional" fossils. Fossilization is very rare.

as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Transitional fossils" is a human concept that takes the place of creation.

No more so than thunderclouds are a human concept that takes the place of Thor.

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

Then what rules and guidelines would you like to use?

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.

How do you know a transitional fossil doesn't exist if you don't know what one would look like?

 

[HitchSlap]

as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.

I don't know. What do paleontologists have to say about it?

As one book I read stated, technically, every fossil found is transitional, but some more obvious than others.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?"

Why should there be plenty of transitional fossils? Just because there had to be a lot of organisms does not mean there should be a lot of fossils of those organisms.

 

[Willtor]

as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.

I have a sense of what crjmurray means by "transitional." What do you mean when you use that word? It may be that what you mean by "transitional" is predicted not to exist by evolution. Or it may be that what you mean by "transitional" actually applies to all fossils.

 

[Loudmouth]

but we have plenty of fossil evidence of new and suddenly appearing body plans but no evidence in fossil form as to the precursors.

How do you determine if a body plan suddenly appears? What features would a fossil need in order to be a precursor? How did you determine that those precursors don't exist?

 

[Loudmouth]

as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.

What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional, according to your understanding?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

This is a good example. A lot of "transitional" bones are found. However, in that case, we can never be sure WHERE did the ape end and WHERE did the human begin. If we apply this situation (enough fossils) to other animals, can we really say that one animal "evolved into" another animal?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a good example. A lot of "transitional" bones are found. However, in that case, we can never be sure WHERE did the ape end and WHERE did the human begin. If we apply this situation (enough fossils) to other animals, can we really say that one animal "evolved into" another animal?

No one is claiming that any fossil is a direct ancestor of a living organism or another fossil specimen. None are assumed to be a direct ancestor. What the transitional fossils evidence is the existence of these evolutionary stages, even if they were side branches that went extinct but still preserved the evolutionary transition from an earlier stage of descent.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

We are talking about fossils, fossils of animals that reproduced exactly like we observe today. Breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. There are no transitional fossils linking two species - unless you incorrectly call two different breeds species.

You know, just like they do with Finches. So if they can not get animals that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right before their eyes labeled correctly - I sure have no confidence they got those transitional fossils labeled correctly - nor I doubt the two they are trying to link.

You claim these are all separate species.

I claim they are all just different breeds of the same species, just like we observe before our eyes.

You are looking for links that do not exist, as each of those dinosaur came about from breed mating with breed producing a new breed. Just like we observe in the natural world. The empirical evidence goes against everything you are trying to claim. Just as all cats are one species and all dogs are of one species, so too were all of those dinosaur in the picture above one species.

You've given no good evidence yet that any of those claimed transitional fossils are related to anything, nor that two creatures you are trying to link are related. Those that are clearly just different breeds like Triceratops and T. Prorsus, you classify incorrectly as separate species just like those finches. And so you look for a transitional between them, when none existed in the first place. You simply observe the appearance of a new breed in the fossil record from two other breeds mating.

I'm not going to play the "IF evolution was true" game, because it isn't. There exist no transitional fossils because breed mates with breed producing new breeds. They just labeled them incorrectly as separate species when they are in actuality merely different breeds.

 

[PapaZoom]

Why should there be plenty of transitional fossils? Just because there had to be a lot of organisms does not mean there should be a lot of fossils of those organisms.

If it's claimed that there were lots of organisms but there's no evidence for such, that makes no sense.

We have a huge gap in the fossil record. What we do have is fully developed body plans.

 

[PapaZoom]

I have a sense of what crjmurray means by "transitional." What do you mean when you use that word? It may be that what you mean by "transitional" is predicted not to exist by evolution. Or it may be that what you mean by "transitional" actually applies to all fossils.

If we have a fossil of an organism with a fully developed eye but no fossil evidence of organisms with developing eyes, perhaps that should tell us something. A transitional fossil are those fossils that are precursors to a current fossil under study. So in the case of the Cambrian fossils, why are there no precursors to those body plans? We have theories, drawings, but no real evidence. A complex body plan fully formed with no precursors suggests something other than the Darwinian model.

 

[crjmurray]

We are talking about fossils, fossils of animals that reproduced exactly like we observe today. Breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. There are no transitional fossils linking two species - unless you incorrectly call two different breeds species.

You know, just like they do with Finches. So if they can not get animals that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right before their eyes labeled correctly - I sure have no confidence they got those transitional fossils labeled correctly - nor I doubt the two they are trying to link.

You claim these are all separate species.

I claim they are all just different breeds of the same species, just like we observe before our eyes.

You are looking for links that do not exist, as each of those dinosaur came about from breed mating with breed producing a new breed. Just like we observe in the natural world. The empirical evidence goes against everything you are trying to claim. Just as all cats are one species and all dogs are of one species, so too were all of those dinosaur in the picture above one species.

You've given no good evidence yet that any of those claimed transitional fossils are related to anything, nor that two creatures you are trying to link are related. Those that are clearly just different breeds like Triceratops and T. Prorsus, you classify incorrectly as separate species just like those finches. And so you look for a transitional between them, when none existed in the first place. You simply observe the appearance of a new breed in the fossil record from two other breeds mating.

I'm not going to play the "IF evolution was true" game, because it isn't. There exist no transitional fossils because breed mates with breed producing new breeds. They just labeled them incorrectly as separate species when they are in actuality merely different breeds.

So.....features?

 

[PapaZoom]

How do you determine if a body plan suddenly appears? What features would a fossil need in order to be a precursor? How did you determine that those precursors don't exist?

If you're familiar with the Cambrian strata, you'd know that the fossils found displayed new and unique complex body plans. And in previous strata there were found no precursors (similar body plans where modifications could take place).

Darwin himself explained the problem:

(On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.)

"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character.

Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence beneath the Upper Cambrian formations of vast piles of strata rich in fossils is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more it has invariably suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."
​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For the same reasons we don't find an "abundance" of "non-transitional" fossils. Fossilization is very rare.

Isn't that excuse a little worn out by now? We have plenty of triceratops, plenty of T. Prorsus. Just face up to the facts that no transitional fossils exist between them because T. Prorsus is just a new breed of the species to which both it and triceratops belong.

You have fossils in mass burial sites all over the world. Piled together and you want to talk about lack of them? We are still digging up the ones we have already found. So many in huge swaths of them all piled together we have been chipping away for 200 years and still haven't gotten them all.

The problem isn't lack of fossils and we all know this, there are close to 500 million in museums around the world. The problem is they are all of them in a state of stasis (breed remains the same breed until mated with another breed). The problem is that no transitional fossils exist just like none exist between an Asian and African, and an Afro-Asian. You want something to be that just does not exist.

 

[Willtor]

This is a good example. A lot of "transitional" bones are found. However, in that case, we can never be sure WHERE did the ape end and WHERE did the human begin. If we apply this situation (enough fossils) to other animals, can we really say that one animal "evolved into" another animal?

There's no hard line where ape ends and human begins. It's grey. It's grey because we decide what we want to call human and what we don't want to call human. There's no line in nature.

 

[Willtor]

If we have a fossil of an organism with a fully developed eye but no fossil evidence of organisms with developing eyes, perhaps that should tell us something. A transitional fossil are those fossils that are precursors to a current fossil under study. So in the case of the Cambrian fossils, why are there no precursors to those body plans? We have theories, drawings, but no real evidence. A complex body plan fully formed with no precursors suggests something other than the Darwinian model.

It shouldn't tell us anything. That's putting too much of the burden on the oldest of the old fossils.

Things that developed a long time ago are not likely to have a lot of fossil-related data regarding their development. Typically, one has to look at species that come down just outside of the clade that contains the feature. Oftentimes, there will be an organism just outside of the clade that has something like the feature but either less functional, or having developed capabilities differently, or serving a different purpose. You mention the eye: There are, of course, creatures with simple light-sensitive spots, just as there are creatures with more (and/or differently) functional eyes than we have.

 

[juvenissun]

There's no hard line where ape ends and human begins. It's grey. It's grey because we decide what we want to call human and what we don't want to call human. There's no line in nature.

All "transitional" forms are squeezed and included in that thin "line". So the line is easy to see. The only problem is that the transition can not been seen.