Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

Very defensive aren't we? It was a straightforward question, have you examined these fossils or not? What are your qualifications?

My qualifications are an entire living world of observational fact in which infraspecific taxa exist within every species. My qualifications are an entire fossil record in which not a single infraspecific taxa exist.

I think its you who are being defensive by refusing to accept the observational data.

Jack Horner sure examined them and found you couldn't even get babies and adults classified correctly.

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

I suppose you have a problem with his qualifications?????

But hey, whatever excuse floats your boat to ignore observational evidence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Very defensive aren't we? It was a straightforward question, have you examined these fossils or not? What are your qualifications?

So let me ask you a question. Do you believe dinosaurs were reptiles?

 

[Jimmy D]

My qualifications are an entire living world of observational fact in which infraspecific taxa exist within every species. My qualifications are an entire fossil record in which not a single infraspecific taxa exist.

Not qualified, check.

I think its you who are being defensive by refusing to accept the observational data.

I've accepted or denied nothing so far. At this point I'm trying to discern whether or not you know what you're talking about.

ack Horner sure examined them and found you couldn't even get babies and adults classified correctly.

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

I suppose you have a problem with his qualifications?????

But hey, whatever excuse floats your boat to ignore observational evidence.

I can't watch your video at the moment, but I've got no reason to doubt what he says. (BTW. Ironically you managed to find an unqualified paleontologist to taunt me with. LOL)

But are you seriously suggesting that the fact that there may be some difficulty in classifying fossils accurately somehow overturns the theory of evolution?

 

[Jimmy D]

So let me ask you a question. Do you believe dinosaurs were reptiles?

No.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No.

Why not? The "experts" spent over 100 years telling us they were and wrote millions of papers telling us all about it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not qualified, check.



I've accepted or denied nothing so far. At this point I'm trying to discern whether or not you know what you're talking about.



I can't watch your video at the moment, but I've got no reason to doubt what he says. (BTW. Ironically you managed to find an unqualified paleontologist to taunt me with. LOL)

But are you seriously suggesting that the fact that there may be some difficulty in classifying fossils accurately somehow overturns the theory of evolution?

Are you saying you can't look at the world around you and discern all they myriad of infraspecific taxa that exist within every species?

Are you saying you can't look at the fossil classifications and realize that they have not one single infraspecific taxa listed in any of the species?

What is there to discern about the truth of their mistaken classifications? Besides perhaps your not wanting to admit the truth to my assertations?

If the fosssil record classification was accurate, would it not reflect the reality of what we see around us in that for every species there exists several infraspecific taxa within that species?

I would sure like to know what you think is qualified if Jack Horner isn't qualified?

Jack Horner (paleontologist) - Wikipedia

He attended the University of Montana for seven years, majoring in geology and zoology.... Within the paleontological community, Horner is best known for his work on the cutting edge of dinosaur growth research... Horner has published more than 100 professional papers.

I thought one of your qualifications was published papers?

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you saying you can't look at the world around you and discern all they myriad of infraspecific taxa that exist within every species?

No, I never said that.

Are you saying you can't look at the fossil classifications and realize that they have not one single infraspecific taxa listed in any of the species?

Nor that.

What is there to discern about the truth of their mistaken classifications? Besides perhaps your not wanting to admit the truth to my assertations?

You have yet to demonstrate mistaken classifactions.

If the fosssil record classification was accurate, would it not reflect the reality of what we see around us in that for every species there exists several infraspecific taxa within that species?

Generally speaking I have no reason to believe that it isn't accurate.

I would sure like to know what you think is qualified if Jack Horner isn't qualified?

Jack Horner (paleontologist) - Wikipedia

He attended the University of Montana for seven years, majoring in geology and zoology.... Within the paleontological community, Horner is best known for his work on the cutting edge of dinosaur growth research... Horner has published more than 100 professional papers.

I thought one of your qualifications was published papers?

As I say, I've got no reason to doubt that he is an expert. He seems to be well respected and has done some excellent work as far as I am aware.

Horner - "No, I do not have a degree of any kind. I got two honorary doctorates, but I do not have a normal degree — not a bachelor's, a master's or a Ph.D"

I believe he had problems with his dyslexia.

Do you think Jack Horner would agree with your "huskies from huskies, asians from asians" ideas. Do you think that he's agree that your notion that "The fossil record is divorced from reality"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have yet to demonstrate mistaken classifactions.

Can you show me infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record? Then it should be clear to you that the classifications are indeed a mistake else the fossil record would reflect the reality of the observational data of the world around us would it not?

I assert these:

Are clear examples of your mistaken classification of infraspecific taxa within the species as seperate species. That they are no different than these:

All merely different infraspecific taxa within the species.

Generally speaking I have no reason to believe that it isn't accurate.

Yet you have an entire living world of observational data that says it isn't accurate since it fails to match the observational data that infraspecific taxa exist within every species.

As I say, I've got no reason to doubt that he is an expert. He seems to be well respected and has done some excellent work as far as I am aware.

Horner - "No, I do not have a degree of any kind. I got two honorary doctorates, but I do not have a normal degree — not a bachelor's, a master's or a Ph.D"

I believe he had problems with his dyslexia.

Do you think Jack Horner would agree with your "huskies from huskies, asians from asians" ideas. Do you think that he's agree that your notion that "The fossil record is divorced from reality"?

He would have no choice but to agree. All observational data shows that Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Only when Husky mates with the Mastiff do we get variation (the Chinook) within the species. Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. Only when the Asian mates with an African do we get variation ( Afro-Asian) within the species.

You and he both have never observed anything else. Now you can of course fantasize it happened differently in the past, everyone is entitled to freedom of belief. But T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. Triceratops remained Triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. This is true for every single fossil that exists. You have seen nothing different in the world around us or in the fossil record.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

" Are there transitional fossils? "

According to Scripture, no.

According to YHWH, no.

According to Y'SHUA MESSIAH, no.

According to the ones I know who agree with Scripture, YHWH, and Y'SHUA, no.

According to all the scientists who agree with Scripture, YHWH, and Y'SHUA, no.

There's no reason to think transitional fossils would or could exist.

Notice every claim that one ever might have or did exist, was exposed as false, in every way.

Open minded? No.

No reason to be.

(The world/ society/ mankind is known for deception, not for truth seeking)

 

[Ed1wolf]

In another thread the question of transitional fossils came up. As this was off topic, I move the discussion here.



Uh no, it it was not that I was unable to answer your question. I was just trying to keep that thread from being diverted off topic.

The question was, "Why do you think Stephen Jay Gould came up with Punctuated Equilibrium?" It is certainly not because Gould thought there were no transitional fossils. Gould had arguable tirelessly for the existence of transitional fossils. His article on the transitional fossils leading to the middle ear of mammals, for instance, was key to my deconversion from creationism.

Most of the biggest differences between mammals and reptiles are soft tissues. Heart, reproductive organs, lungs, brain, etc. Those thing rarely if ever show up in the fossil record.

dm: Uh, yes Anchiornus was "not exactly a modern bird". In fact, it was not even close to a modern bird. Your favorite source, wikipedia, calls it a feathered dinosaur. See Anchiornis - Wikipedia.

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, wouldn't fossils like anchiornus and archaeopteryx be what you would expect to find? How can these not be called transitionals?

Wikipedia is wrong on this one. It is pretty good on history, not so good on biology and evolution. As with mammals and reptiles the biggest differences between birds and dinosaurs are with the soft tissues which generally do not fossilize.

 

[xianghua]

There are no transitional states, just mistaken classifications of the different infraspecific taxa within each species.

Look at the world around you. In every species there exists several infraspecific taxa. Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. Black bear, brown bear, grizzly bear for example. We can do this for every single species that exists.

Now go look at the fossil record. There exists not one single infraspecific taxa in the species. This is because they have incorrectly listed them as seperate species. This leads to the wrong conclusions about other infraspecific taxa.

For example: if we incorrectly listed an Asian as a seperate species from the African, we would come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. Or if we incorrectly listed the Husky as a seperate species from the Mastiff, we would come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook.

The fossil record is divorced from reality, so much so that they can not even get babies and adults of the same species correct. If they can't even get babies and adults of the same species correct, they certainly have no hope of getting all the different infraspecific taxa in the species correct.

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

But they will go on mistaking the different infraspecific taxa as transitionals, all the while refusing to see that their classifications of the fossil record do not reflect reality. They have an entire living world which shows their classifications are incorrect, but will continue to ignore this as incorrect classifications of infraspecific taxa in the fossil record bolster their false claims.

the whole argument of a transitional fossils is wrong. for instance: even if we will find a trannnnsitional object between a car and a truck ( a jeep)its doesnt prove any evolution. even if they was self replicaiting and contain dna.

 

[Speedwell]

the whole argument of a transitional fossils is wrong. for instance: even if we will find a trannnnsitional object between a car and a truck ( a jeep)its doesnt prove any evolution. even if they was self replicaiting and contain dna.

Your whole idea of transitional fossils is wrong. If you want to stick with the example of (self-replicating?!!!) cars and trucks, there would not be a transitional between a car and a truck. The connection between cars and trucks is Cugnot's 1769 steam wagon, their common ancestor.

 

[Abraxos]

Oh yeah, "transitional fossils" are a bad argument for the theory of evolution because it's a misinterpretation of the geological structure of the earth. Each of the geological layers do not represent an age but are all sediment rapidly deposited by water and distributed by dense and large sediment in lower parts and lighter smaller sediment in higher parts. This can be scientifically verified with simple experimentation.

How for example could you have an age of chalk? Or an age of coal? Another problem is that over time each "age layer" would not have such clear distinct boundaries. Over such long durations of time these "age layers" would blend into each other; this is called gradation.

"Transitional fossils" is a wild goose chase.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh yeah, "transitional fossils" are a bad argument for the theory of evolution because it's a misinterpretation of the geological structure of the earth. Each of the geological layers do not represent an age but are all sediment rapidly deposited by water and distributed by dense and large sediment in lower parts and lighter smaller sediment in higher parts. This can be scientifically verified with simple experimentation.

Do you have ANY evidence at all that the geological layers have been lain down as you say they have? Because limestone is denser than sandstone but limestone is found above sandstone in any stratigraphic column.
And please don't tell me this 'experiment' is just where gravel and sand is placed in a centrifuge, spun around and then left to settle. Which is not an example of how the worldwide geology is lain down AT ALL.

How for example could you have an age of chalk? Or an age of coal?

Measurement of radiohaloes in the chalk and coal. NEXT!

Another problem is that over time each "age layer" would not have such clear distinct boundaries. Over such long durations of time these "age layers" would blend into each other; this is called gradation.

On what basis do you have to make this assumption? Because you do know that even in areas where this is seen, you can still clearly see the geological layers.

Also, notice how there is shale sandwiched between sandstone and limestone.

"Transitional fossils" is a wild goose chase.

List of transitional fossils.
Next time, try harder than simply reciting simple PRATTs. Although I will admit the merging of the layers is a new one for me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you have ANY evidence at all that the geological layers have been lain down as you say they have? Because limestone is denser than sandstone but limestone is found above sandstone in any stratigraphic column.
And please don't tell me this 'experiment' is just where gravel and sand is placed in a centrifuge, spun around and then left to settle. Which is not an example of how the worldwide geology is lain down AT ALL.



Measurement of radiohaloes in the chalk and coal. NEXT!



On what basis do you have to make this assumption? Because you do know that even in areas where this is seen, you can still clearly see the geological layers.

Also, notice how there is shale sandwiched between sandstone and limestone.



List of transitional fossils.
Next time, try harder than simply reciting simple PRATTs. Although I will admit the merging of the layers is a new one for me.

Funny how the very picture you posted shows sandstone above the limestone as well. The sandstone layer that was above the top limestone layer has been eroded over the intervening years. You know, weathering.

But your list of transitionals is just mistaken infraspecific taxa, which is why no one has yet been able to show me infraspecific taxa in the fossil record even though every species alive today has several within it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Funny how the very picture you posted shows sandstone above the limestone as well. The sandstone layer that was above the top limestone layer has been eroded over the intervening years. You know, weathering.

And limestone above that. Weathering does nothing to support the claims made by abraxos about the layers being lain down quickly.

 

[Abraxos]

Do you have ANY evidence at all that the geological layers have been lain down as you say they have? Because limestone is denser than sandstone but limestone is found above sandstone in any stratigraphic column.
And please don't tell me this 'experiment' is just where gravel and sand is placed in a centrifuge, spun around and then left to settle. Which is not an example of how the worldwide geology is lain down AT ALL.



Measurement of radiohaloes in the chalk and coal. NEXT!



On what basis do you have to make this assumption? Because you do know that even in areas where this is seen, you can still clearly see the geological layers.

Also, notice how there is shale sandwiched between sandstone and limestone.



List of transitional fossils.
Next time, try harder than simply reciting simple PRATTs. Although I will admit the merging of the layers is a new one for me.

Sure it is. There is no other explanation for the geological makeup we see.

You pointed out some interesting things like why is there some sediment that are denser than another above them, which there are examples of -- it's simply because the sandstone (from your example) was deposited first and became relatively solid before limestone was deposited on top of it. This is evidence of a continuous overlapping over time which can only be done by a large body of moving water.

Chalk is another interesting thing you pointed out like the White Cliffs of Dover, England and cliffs of Normandy, France. How does that happen? Firstly, what is chalk? Chalk made up of marine organisms and when they settle down they die and the organic material disappears and all that remains is calcium carbonate (their shells). That settles down and forms a white layer. This can only be done in water. So that means the White Cliffs were under water at one point in time.

How do you explain the White Cliffs of Dover?

Measurement of radiohaloes in the chalk and coal. NEXT!

Can you explain what that even means or how is that even an answer to an age of chalk or coal or limestone? I mean doesn't that even strike you as a little odd that there was only an age of one particular kind of dirt?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

the whole argument of a transitional fossils is wrong. for instance: even if we will find a trannnnsitional object between a car and a truck ( a jeep)its doesnt prove any evolution. even if they was self replicaiting and contain dna.

Of course it's wrong. We see infraspecific taxa in every species alive today. But not a single one exists in the fossil record. This is because in the fossil record they have mistakenly labeled the infraspecific taxa as seperate species. This leads them into believing some are transitional when they are merely mistakes in classification.

Just as if we found only bones of the Husky and Mastiff and labeled them incorrectly as seperate species, when we found bones of the Chinook in the later strata we would come to the wrong conclusion about it, believing it must have evolved from a common ancestor of the Husky and Mastiff or that the Husky or Mastiff was a transitional.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure it is. There is no other explanation for the geological makeup we see.

You pointed out some interesting things like why is there some sediment that are denser than another above them, which there are examples of -- it's simply because the sandstone (from your example) was deposited first and became relatively solid before limestone was deposited on top of it. This is evidence of a continuous overlapping over time which can only be done by a large body of moving water.

Chalk is another interesting thing you pointed out like the White Cliffs of Dover, England and cliffs of Normandy, France. How does that happen? Firstly, what is chalk? Chalk made up of marine organisms and when they settle down they die and the organic material disappears and all that remains is calcium carbonate (their shells). That settles down and forms a white layer. This can only be done in water. So that means the White Cliffs were under water at one point in time.

But you, nor any of the thousands of geologists in the world, including our own @RickG, have found ANY evidence to support the claim that the geological layers were lain down quickly. You make the claim, so you present the evidence.

Can you explain what that even means or how is that even an answer to an age of chalk or coal or limestone?

Radiohalo.
Basically, by following the decay rate and stages of Uranium-238 in igneous rocks, geologists can measure how old the rocks and the items found in rocks are.

 

[Abraxos]

But you, nor any of the thousands of geologists in the world, including our own @RickG, have found ANY evidence to support the claim that the geological layers were lain down quickly. You make the claim, so you present the evidence.




Radiohalo.
Basically, by following the decay rate and stages of Uranium-238 in igneous rocks, geologists can measure how old the rocks and the items found in rocks are.

Ah so it's because "he said" and "she said" but with a lack of explanation on why.

Anyway, hydrogeology is a demonstrable and tested science. Every geologist, hydrologist and sedimentologists in the world know about this. The Waterways Experiment Station, also known as WES-Original Cantonment in Vicksburg, Mississippi, the world's foremost hydrology laboratory run by a core of engineers and experts. It's a multi-billion dollar facility. They perform experimentations with water and sediments everyday there to predict where the worse erosion will take place and where to spend the next millions of dollars into controlling the Mississippi River. In those experiments they create strata all the time.

So Hydrologists are well aware that strata are formed by moving water. It's only when you move into the realm of evolutionary processes in uniformitarianism it becomes less science and more dogmatic. The science that hydrologists and sedimentologists are well aware of is conveniently forgotten.

Radiohalo.
Basically, by following the decay rate and stages of Uranium-238 in igneous rocks, geologists can measure how old the rocks and the items found in rocks are.

What? My question is, if these sedimentary layers represent ages, then why is there some areas that have chalk, or limestone, or any other particular kind of dirt?

And doesn't that seem a little odd that just one kind of age had just one kind of dirt?