Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

"Transitional" species can still be around while their descendants are. The forebear population may be largely unchanged, while the descendant population(s) can go through rapid morphological changes, resulting in what would be identified as a new species.

There's no reason why an antecedent species needs to go extinct when descendant species develop.

As long as they keep incorrectly classifying those infraspecific taxa as seperate species it will appear that way. Every species that exists today has several infraspecific taxa within that species. Yet in the fossil record not a single infraspecific taxa exists in any of the species. This is because they have incorrectly classified them as seperate species.

This leads to incorrect conclusions. If I incorrectly classified an Asian as a separate species from the African, I would naturally come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. Or if I incorrectly classified the Husky as a seperate species from the Mastiff, I would come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook. I would think transitionals existed and that species were evolving into other species. All because of mistaken classifications of those infraspecific taxa.

That they are classified incorrectly is quite evident. All one needs do is look at every species alive today and see the different infraspecific taxa that exist within that species which is absent in the fossil record. Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. Brown bear, black bear, grizzly for example. And the list goes on and on and on for every single species. Yet the fossil record contains not a single infraspecific taxa in any of the species. Clearly the have incorrectly classified them as seperate species. Not surprising since they incorrectly classified babies and adults of the same species as seperate species.

 

[Jimmy D]

Are we talking about the same people that claimed for 100 years dinosaurs were reptiles? I thought they extensively studied them, ooops. Are we talking about the same people that incorrectly classified babies and adults of the same species as seperate species?

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

I guess so much for their extensive studies.

Newsflash:

1. Dinosaur fossils are fairly rare.

2. Knowledge will be updated as more information comes to light.

Isn't it strange how the distribution of fossils in the geological strata corresponds exactly with what we would expect to see in the volutionary timeline. Why on Earth do you think quibbles over incorrectly classified juveniles makes any difference? Because you've latched onto a specific area that you percieve as being wrong and think it shows everything else we know about the fossil record is wrong. Sorry, but it doesn't.

I've said it before you are deluding yourself. If I classify an Asian incorrectly as a separate species from the African, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. If I incorrectly classify the Husky as a separate species from the Mastiff, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook. I start believing transitionals exist and species are evolving into other species. Like Darwin did when he believed those finches were reproductively isolated. It's only too bad the DNA data showed they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and speciation never took place. I know you want to believe your delusion, but its time to face reality.

You might have noticed that by now every one else is ignoring this rubbish, you've been corrected on it countless times and still you persist. Why not do it a bit of study into the evolution and distribution of the human race and come back to us with any specific problems you have.

Then show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record. Or are you going to ignore an entire world of infraspecific taxa within the species so you can continue to believe your own delusions?

It's been mentioned by your hero Jack Horner but please enlighten me, how specifically does this cast any doubt on the theory of evolution? Your expert doesn't seem to think it does.

Sure, they claimed it was a fact that dinosaurs were reptiles too. That didnt pan out too well. People claimed it as a fact the Milkjy-Way was the entire universe. That didnt pan out to well either. People claimed the earth was the center of the solar system and had the math to prove it. That didnt pan out very well. Peoiple make all sorts of claims of fact, but in the end they never stay around very long. But as long as you keep ignoring the data and believing in lies, it'll take years before you realize like those dinosaurs that were not reptiles, that your wrong.

LOL, you bought Horner into this to try to back up your claims with an expert, don't cry because he would think your argument is nonsensical. The rest of this paragraph is rubbish, so what if people got things wrong in the past? The fact is that solid evidence from across many disciplines agrees that evolution is a fact.

And those dogs are still dogs, will never become another species, unless you incorrectly classify them like you have done with those finches and 90% of the fossil record. We agree, what we see with dogs would if left to natural causes have taken hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and there would only be a few breeds. But then again, they would still be the same species. What you see with dogs is accelerated by man, and yet none are evolving into new species.

Dogs are still dogs ergo the best supported scientific theory we have is completely wrong, you're embarrassing yourself.

Don't try that false propaganda with me. And also in a flood that is worldwide, not all dinosaurs would be washed up together, so we would expect many to be found by themselves. But the mass burials outnumber them in the billions. Just as in any flood we see mass washups along with many that are scattered individually.

You're arguing for a worldwide flood now? I can feel my IQ dropping even as I read this. "Yeah but they're all piled together" vs the wealth of knowlege and research we have on the subject.... please.

Have a look at the OP in this thread.

World's Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death

The article is about Coastal flood plains. You know, things that actually happen, can be measured and quantified.

Apparently you think dog breeds were separately created as well, even if they all came from an original pair. But you cant understand that probably, being brainwashed.

Good grief. Have you got any evidence for this "original pair" or for any animal coming from an "original pair"?

 

[Jimmy D]

As long as they keep incorrectly classifying those infraspecific taxa as seperate species it will appear that way. Every species that exists today has several infraspecific taxa within that species. Yet in the fossil record not a single infraspecific taxa exists in any of the species. This is because they have incorrectly classified them as seperate species.

This leads to incorrect conclusions. If I incorrectly classified an Asian as a separate species from the African, I would naturally come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. Or if I incorrectly classified the Husky as a seperate species from the Mastiff, I would come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook. I would think transitionals existed and that species were evolving into other species. All because of mistaken classifications of those infraspecific taxa.

That they are classified incorrectly is quite evident. All one needs do is look at every species alive today and see the different infraspecific taxa that exist within that species which is absent in the fossil record. Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. Brown bear, black bear, grizzly for example. And the list goes on and on and on for every single species. Yet the fossil record contains not a single infraspecific taxa in any of the species. Clearly the have incorrectly classified them as seperate species. Not surprising since they incorrectly classified babies and adults of the same species as seperate species.

All of this has been addressed by Sarah, why not respond to her points instead of mindlessly repeating yourself. I'll ask again, specifically how does "huskies from huskies" contradict the idea that...

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, no, no. Darwin said the lack of transitionals would be fatal to the theory. He expected them to be found as they should outnumber the rest. Hundreds of years later and with over 400 million fossils added to the list..... Fatality when and if they ever admit it.

LOL. What do you think a transitional fossil is? A Horse with udders?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I take it you don't understand the difference between mummification and fossilization? Apparently not. Next you'll claim those frozen mammoths in Siberia.....

This was found in the Gobi Desert. If you don't understand why I reference the Gobi Desert, then you truly know nothing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Newsflash:

1. Dinosaur fossils are fairly rare.

Newsflash, we have over 400 million fossils in museums around the world, not counting the millions still laying at the dig sites.

2. Knowledge will be updated as more information comes to light.

When in 100 years like it took to figure out dinosaurs were not reptiles, despite being "extensively studied" as you put it? I can't tell, you got direct DNA data that those Finches were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never occurred, hasn't stopped them from lying out their teeth over them.

Isn't it strange how the distribution of fossils in the geological strata corresponds exactly with what we would expect to see in the volutionary timeline. Why on Earth do you think quibbles over incorrectly classified juveniles makes any difference? Because you've latched onto a specific area that you percieve as being wrong and think it shows everything else we know about the fossil record is wrong. Sorry, but it doesn't.

which order was stolen from the Bible and then presented as if it is unique to evolutionary theory.

You might have noticed that by now every one else is ignoring this rubbish, you've been corrected on it countless times and still you persist. Why not do it a bit of study into the evolution and distribution of the human race and come back to us with any specific problems you have.

Ignoring the data is all they can do when you got no data to defend your beliefs with. So where are those infraspecific taxa in the fossil record, you still haven't provided a single solitary one.

It's been mentioned by your hero Jack Horner but please enlighten me, how specifically does this cast any doubt on the theory of evolution? Your expert doesn't seem to think it does.

I'd say the same thing if I had to publish in today's circles. But if those classified as seperate species are actually babies and adults or in most cases infraspecific taxa, then your evolutionary tree falls apart. Not that you'll ever admit to such a thing.

LOL, you bought Horner into this to try to back up your claims with an expert, don't cry because he would think your argument is nonsensical. The rest of this paragraph is rubbish, so what if people got things wrong in the past? The fact is that solid evidence from across many disciplines agrees that evolution is a fact.

Based upon incorrect classifications of infraspecific taxa, I'm sure it does. But you don't really have any evidence at all, not even Horner saying he doesn't agree. In fact he disagrees with you about your classification of babies and adults as seperate species.

Dogs are still dogs ergo the best supported scientific theory we have is completely wrong, you're embarrassing yourself.

Says the man or child, sorry, that brought dogs up then when pointed out they haven't evolved at all despite accelerated by man, cries about it.

You're arguing for a worldwide flood now? I can feel my IQ dropping even as I read this. "Yeah but they're all piled together" vs the wealth of knowlege and research we have on the subject.... please.

And yet the same strata is worldwide. If it was local floods over vast periods of time the strata would vary accordingly. Just because you can't correctly interpret the data is not my fault. But then again we supposedly had vast wealth of knowledge and research telling us dinosaurs were reptiles for over 100 years. So much for what the experts claimed, huh?

The article is about Coastal flood plains. You know, things that actually happen, can be measured and quantified.

And notice the layering is not consistent with what is happening in the rest of the world...... but keep ignoring that and maybe you'll convince yourself it doesn't exist.

Good grief. Have you got any evidence for this "original pair" or for any animal coming from an "original pair"?

Have you got any for your original organism?

Don't know about you, but to get a baby it takes two. And since bacteria reproduce by cloning, you only end up with what you started with, bacteria. As your own E. coli test showed. The researchers plainly stated every possible mutation had been gone through, yet they never evolved into anything.... but keep ignoring the data, it's your only defense. That and ad hominem attacks because you lack the science to defend your theory with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This was found in the Gobi Desert. If you don't understand why I reference the Gobi Desert, then you truly know nothing.

And? Did you expect the sedimentary layers to not weather? What is sand but weathered rock???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL. What do you think a transitional fossil is? A Horse with udders?

In your fantasy world it's an incorrect classification of the infraspecific taxa.

 

[Abraxos]

Over the years I have read quite a bit of creation science literature where claims are made that both look at the same evidence but interpret it differently. I have yet to see the same evidence presented.

Looking back on the "same data different interpretation" comment, I had a thread a couple of years ago that asked for specific examples of "same data different interpretation". There were numerous examples posted of different data but none with the same data.

Could you provide some examples on this data you speak of, because it seems we are not on the same page on this. This is how I'm looking at this when I speak of "we are looking at the same evidence but we are interpreting it differently." One example:

1) We both see layers of sediment.
2) You say these layers represent "ages" that gradually accumulate vertically over time.
3) I say these layers are sedimentary layers formed by a process called stratification (hydrology).

Looking at the same thing but interpreting it differently. Do you understand?

Different layers of sediment represent different ages because they can be dated through a number of different independent processes.

Doesn't it bother you that it makes no logical sense to have only one particular kind of material in one "age layer"? This is apparently a question that evolutionists struggle with, because like the other guy, you and him provided a non-answer.

Marine Limestone does not form in flood environments of any kind. It is a result of deposition of marine organisms and/or precipitants of calcium carbonate over very long periods. Nor does shale form entirely from floods. Shale forms in lakes and lagoonal deposits, in river deltas, floodplains, and sedimentary basins on the continental shelf from very minute particles, typically in very slow moving water. You also have to consider compaction which takes very long periods of time.

You're correct on everything except you are in error to assume it can only be done over very long periods. In fact it can only be done in a relatively short amount of time because calcium carbonate dissolves fairly quickly when we add "very long periods"; the increase in velocity of the currents and/or the unpredictability of change in the environment will make short work of the calcium carbonate.

As long as the water is relatively calm and not too deep it won't take too long to form a white layer. Compaction isn't really necessary as seen with the White Cliffs of Dover, as it was temporarily in shallow waters. Regardless, a deposit of other sediments over the limestone is no problem for me but it is problematic for you. And you haven't addressed my question but rather are agreeing with me that the mechanism involved is hydrology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All of this has been addressed by Sarah, why not respond to her points instead of mindlessly repeating yourself. I'll ask again, specifically how does "huskies from huskies" contradict the idea that...

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

How does Huskies from Huskies support your belief Huskies eventually become something besides Huskies. As pointed out to you, and you of course ignore because you have no choice, to which I understand, the only time we see variation in the species is when as per example Husky mates with the Mastiff and produces the Chinook.

The Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff and a new infraspecific taxa appears in the record. Nothing evolved at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Could you provide some examples on this data you speak of, because it seems we are not on the same page on this. This is how I'm looking at this when I speak of "we are looking at the same evidence but we are interpreting it differently." One example:

1) We both see layers of sediment.
2) You say these layers represent "ages" that gradually accumulate vertically over time.
3) I say these layers are sedimentary layers formed by a process called stratification (hydrology).

Looking at the same thing but interpreting it differently. Do you understand?


Doesn't it bother you that it makes no logical sense to have only one particular kind of material in one "age layer"? This is apparently a question that evolutionists struggle with, because like the other guy, you and him provided a non-answer.


You're correct on everything except you are in error to assume it can only be done over very long periods. In fact it can only be done in a relatively short amount of time because calcium carbonate dissolves fairly quickly when we add "very long periods"; the increase in velocity of the currents and/or the unpredictability of change in the environment will make short work of the calcium carbonate.

As long as the water is relatively calm and not too deep it won't take too long to form a white layer. Compaction isn't really necessary as seen with the White Cliffs of Dover, as it was temporarily in shallow waters. Regardless, a deposit of other sediments over the limestone is no problem for me but it is problematic for you. And you haven't addressed my question but rather are agreeing with me that the mechanism involved is hydrology.

Because the only way they can support their beliefs is to ignore that we DO NOT see the same type of strata being deposited today globally. Which each local flood in a specific local, a different type of material is being deposited.

This should tell them that their belief that the same strata was deposited over vast periods of time globally is flawed, but apparently it hasn't.

What can one do when they ignore the geological processes at work right in front of their noses and right in front of their eyes?

Now I'm waiting for the claim it proceeds differently now while requiring it proceeded the same for billions of years. Ahhh, what can one do indeed.

 

[Jimmy D]

Newsflash, we have over 400 million fossils in museums around the world, not counting the millions still laying at the dig sites.


When in 100 years like it took to figure out dinosaurs were not reptiles, despite being "extensively studied" as you put it? I can't tell, you got direct DNA data that those Finches were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never occurred, hasn't stopped them from lying out their teeth over them.

which order was stolen from the Bible and then presented as if it is unique to evolutionary theory.


Ignoring the data is all they can do when you got no data to defend your beliefs with. So where are those infraspecific taxa in the fossil record, you still haven't provided a single solitary one.


I'd say the same thing if I had to publish in today's circles. But if those classified as seperate species are actually babies and adults or in most cases infraspecific taxa, then your evolutionary tree falls apart. Not that you'll ever admit to such a thing.


Based upon incorrect classifications of infraspecific taxa, I'm sure it does. But you don't really have any evidence at all, not even Horner saying he doesn't agree. In fact he disagrees with you about your classification of babies and adults as seperate species.


Says the man or child, sorry, that brought dogs up then when pointed out they haven't evolved at all despite accelerated by man, cries about it.



And yet the same strata is worldwide. If it was local floods over vast periods of time the strata would vary accordingly. Just because you can't correctly interpret the data is not my fault. But then again we supposedly had vast wealth of knowledge and research telling us dinosaurs were reptiles for over 100 years. So much for what the experts claimed, huh?

And notice the layering is not consistent with what is happening in the rest of the world...... but keep ignoring that and maybe you'll convince yourself it doesn't exist.


Have you got any for your original organism?

Don't know about you, but to get a baby it takes two. And since bacteria reproduce by cloning, you only end up with what you started with, bacteria. As your own E. coli test showed. The researchers plainly stated every possible mutation had been gone through, yet they never evolved into anything.... but keep ignoring the data, it's your only defense. That and ad hominem attacks because you lack the science to defend your theory with.

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of biology, geology and paleontology, yet still make pronouncements that years of painstaking research and peer-reviewed papers are completely wrong.

Let me ask you...

Where do huskies come from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of biology, geology and paleontology, yet still make pronouncements that years of painstaking research and peer-reviewed papers are completely wrong.

Let me ask you...

Where do huskies come from?

We can trace Huskies back to wolves, you know, the Canidae species..... And the funny thing is they are still the same exact species despite over 100 infraspecific taxa in that species from simple mating.

And if all you had were bones and had never seen them alive you would incorrectly classify them as seperate species just like you have done with the fossil record.

Again, evolution is not needed to explain variation. Just the recombination of existing genomes, but then you never understood "and the two shall become one flesh."

Engaging in personal attacks because you have no science certainly doesn't prove your point. Just shows you have no science to back you up.

Do you mean like 100 years of painstaking research and papers stating as fact dinosaurs were reptiles when they were not? You've been corrected several times on your belief if the infallibility of your high priests.

 

[Jimmy D]

We can trace Huskies back to wolves, you know, the Canidae species..... And the funny thing is they are still the same exact species despite over 100 infraspecific taxa in that species from simple mating.

Again, evolution is not needed to explain variation. Just the recombination of existing genomes, but then you never understood "and the two shall become one flesh."

So where did the wolves come from? Why did they change into huskies?

 

[RickG]

Just like the Bible sequence, funny how that works huh.

I fail to the see the comparison. The Bible sequence of events does not match the fossil sequence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And? Did you expect the sedimentary layers to not weather? What is sand but weathered rock???

You said that fossils can only form after flood conditions. The fossils that exist in the Gobi Desert and other landlocked deserts show you that you are wrong!
Pay attention to the conversation next time!

 

[RickG]

We've already been told:

1. The fossil record is one of the weakest ways of showing evolution.

By whom?

2. Even if the fossil record didn't exist, evolution could still be strongly supported by other means.

If the fossil record didn't exist, neither would the concept of evolution. But it does exist, thus, evolution is the means by which it is explained.

The fact of the matter is: evolution is false, but finding fossils top-to-bottom, bottom-to-top, sideways, in a circle, or in the ground spelling GOD DID IT, you guys have already determined it wouldn't mean a thing.

Fossils are not found that way.

 

[Abraxos]

Because the only way they can support their beliefs is to ignore that we DO NOT see the same type of strata being deposited today globally. Which each local flood in a specific local, a different type of material is being deposited.

This should tell them that their belief that the same strata was deposited over vast periods of time globally is flawed, but apparently it hasn't.

What can one do when they ignore the geological processes at work right in front of their noses and right in front of their eyes?

Now I'm waiting for the claim it proceeds differently now while requiring it proceeded the same for billions of years. Ahhh, what can one do indeed.

I hear you. Falsifying the theory of evolution is easy. What we are actually dealing with is an entrenched dogma and a psychological condition we call cognitive dissonance.

I don't really mind these discussions, though. I've been doing this for a long time. The good thing about their arguments, they never change; whereas new discoveries occur overtime that continue to refute the theory of evolution.

Just a quick:

Fish don't die and go to the seabed to get buried. They float to the surface and get eaten.

Additionally, "Age layers" has problems:

Spoiler

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So where did the wolves come from? Why did they change into huskies?

Certainly not from furry little rodents like you believe.

they changed into Huskies because that possible genetic combination from the billions possible already existed within the genome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You said that fossils can only form after flood conditions. The fossils that exist in the Gobi Desert and other landlocked deserts show you that you are wrong!
Pay attention to the conversation next time!

Sigh

And where in your fantasy world does sand come from?