Another good article on transitionals, and this one has the requested pictures

[Vance]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

You ask for pictures, you get pictures (as well as a LOT of evidence for a LOT of transitional fossils). It starts by showing why the fossil record is limited and then goes on to show that even from this limited record, we have more than enough to establish the existence of intermediate development.

 

[Dutchunter]

My response in the other thread...and why I wanted photos.

Why?? Are you serious Vance? I specifically asked for photos, that's why. And it's the only "proof" (there, I put it in quotes for you) that would actually show the transistions actually exist. I don't trust artists renderings/depictions/whatever as many have been shown to be frauds or leaps of faith, etc. And finally, if they exist there'd be tons of photo's taking up tons of webpages.

I think Limitied is an understatement!

Like I said....see you in a few weeks...maybe you will all those photo's by then.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving....

 

[Vance]

That is truly pathetic. I have never seen a more obvious case of running away from the evidence. I predicted that you would be unable and unwilling to engage in the discussion and this has come to pass.

 

[Ark Guy]

I could create similar looking transitionals with currently living animals if I so desired.

I could present the differances between an Asian skull, Caucasian skull and a Negro skull and say it is due to evolution and we are transitional with each other.

I could line up dog skeleton and show evolution.

The bottom line, all you have shown is that those animals existed.

Your turn.

 

[notto]

I could create similar looking transitionals with currently living animals if I so desired.

I could present the differances between an Asian skull, Caucasian skull and a Negro skull and say it is due to evolution and we are transitional with each other.

I could line up dog skeleton and show evolution.

The bottom line, all you have shown is that those animals existed.

Your turn.

You would also have to show succession in ages and geographical location based on where and when the fossil was found.

Your turn.

 

[troodon]

I don't trust artists renderings/depictions/whatever as many have been shown to be frauds or leaps of faith, etc.

You've got some guts to accuse (or at least appear to be accusing) professional scientists of fraud without providing any basis for your claims. I would love to hear what parts of the reconstructions you feel are exaggerated or made-up.

 

[Ark Guy]

You would also have to show succession in ages and geographical location based on where and when the fossil was found.

Your turn.

I see that as no problem.

This is a problem for the evo camp.
I onced traced the so called transitional step of some animals fossils. The fossil record started out in Texas, went up through Canada, through Russia, down through Europe and stopped in Africa.

The problem is that during those so-called ages, the path was impossible or would have been extremely hard for the developing mammals to accomplish.

The funny thing is that they never left a real fossil trail. Just sparatic fossils here and there, lined up in the pre-supposed order.

 

[troodon]

I onced traced the so called transitional step of some animals fossils. The fossil record started out in Texas, went up through Canada, through Russia, down through Europe and stopped in Africa.

The problem is that during those so-called ages, the path was impossible or would have been extremely hard for the developing mammals to accomplish.

The funny thing is that they never left a real fossil trail. Just sparatic fossils here and there, lined up in the pre-supposed order.

Would you care to name the animal or is it a secret?

 

[Ark Guy]

I will have to search for the article I wrote.
I believe it concerned the so-called evolution from reptile to mammal.

 

[Ark Guy]

I found it.

Below are 5 so-called transitionals as presented bythe evolutionistl.

1. Ophiacodon, Early Permian, Texas: "skull had changed from the small low shape...this allowed for longer jaw muscles to develop." ("1", pg. 186)

2. Phthinosuchus Base of Late Permian, USSR: " strikingly similar...but with larger synapsid opneings behind the eyes.. paelontologists believe this to be intermediate in structure between pelycosaurs and Therapsids." ("1", pg. 189)

3. Thrinaxodon, Early Triassic, South Africa, Antartica: "Another mammalian trend seen in the lower jaw... teeth were set into a signle bone,, the dentary, which had become larger at the expense of the smaller bones at back of jaw." ("1", pg. 192)

4. Cynogathus: Early Triassic, South Africa, Argentina: practically the whole lower jaw on each side was made up of a single bone, the dentary...coronoid process at back of dentary articluiated with the skull and meant the jaws could open wide. ("1", pg. 193)

5. Morganucodon: Late Triassic to Early Jurassic, Africa, Europe, Eastern Asia: see pictures presented.

Lets trace out their travel plans....

In the first Picture, Ophiacodon packs his bags and heads north from Texas to the USSR and then becomes Phthinosuchus. I wonder how much trouble this guy had crossing the Appalachian mountains on his journey to evolve?

Then a few yers later Phthinosuchus decides to head south, passing through Pennsylvania and New Jersey...and ends up in South Africa and Antartica where it becomes Thrinaxodon.

Thrinaxodon then hangs out there for a while, evolves into Cynogathus then decides to head north again and takes a trip to East Asia.

I suppose some where on this journey Cynogathus decided to evolve into Morganucodon during the early Jurassic.

WOW....What a trip

All that time, all that distance, all that evolution....and the transitionals are spread out all over the globe... with no evolving fossils found on the way? why?
Could it be the scientist that have a faith in evolutionism...collected these fossil fragments from all over the world...picked out the ones that made sense to their theory...and lined them up?

 

[troodon]

My goodness. Your ignorance regarding the nature of evolution seems almost willfull.

Let me put it to you simply. Ophiacodon did not evolve into Phthinosuchus which did not evolve into Thrinaxodon which did not evolve into Cynogathus which did not evolve into Morganucodon.

A creature like Ophiacodon did evolve into Phthinosuchus and a creature like Phthinosuchus did evolve into Thrinaxodon and a creature like Thrinaxodon did evolve into Cynogathus and a creature like Cynogathus did evolve into Morganucodon.

If you honestly wish to understand evolutionary fossil lineages (and I'm betting you don't but perhaps you'll surprise me) read up on cladistics. Afterwards, you should be able to properly understand the way that fossil lineages work.

By the way, it would be cool if you provided a source for your material. You know, so we can study it and not your little parody (assuming the following is your parody and not a plagiarization of the site).

Lets trace out their travel plans....


In the first Picture, Ophiacodon packs his bags and heads north from Texas to the USSR and then becomes Phthinosuchus. I wonder how much trouble this guy had crossing the Appalachian mountains on his journey to evolve?

Considering YEC requires dodos and elephant birds to cross the Sahara desert immediatly following the flood and then get to a pair of islands hundreds of miles off the coast of Africa and that YEC requires countless animals to cross mountains all across the planet in order to get to their present locations, I must find it humorous that you doubt a therapsid being able to cross som mountains over the course of tens of millions of years.

Regardless of your hypocracy )) if you read the link I provided you will learn that these animals did not evolve directly from one another. They evolved from similar animals that we do not have fossil records of because fossils are rarer than a YECs who properly understands cladistics. So what you end up with is similar species of animals living in different locations across the globe (sort of like monkeys. A larger group of animals that look superficially similar and share many derived characteristics that are very widely distributed). Also, take note that all these continents are combined into a landmass with smaller surface area than the current landmasses. It is very common for the same animals to be found accross the world because they existed throughout Pangea (Brachiosaurus has been found in Colorado and Tanzania for example). So it is not as if Phthinosuchus only lived in the North-East of North America. It is very likely that it (and animals very closely related to it) spanned all of the inhabitable planet.

Then a few yers later Phthinosuchus decides to head south, passing through Pennsylvania and New Jersey...and ends up in South Africa and Antartica where it becomes Thrinaxodon.

Also, if I might say, the choice of language in your commentary regarding time elapsing is absurd given the fact that the earliest to the most recent of the animals you describe spans a time period of just about 100 million years.

 

[Ark Guy]

Ah, the info came from talk.origins.

Try again troodon.

 

[Vance]

Well, of course, he did research and used the information gathered to respond to your quoted material. At least he did it in his own words, showing that he understands the material. If you can not do the same and reply to his responses, then you lose the debate. Go ahead and do the research from any source you like, but if you can't reply to his points . . .

 

[Ark Guy]

But he never explained the evolution and their so-called distance and difficulty of travel....never leaving behind and record.

It's BS vance.

 

[Vance]

Sure, he did. Read it again. Given the time frames involved, no problem at all. The lack of a record is exactly what we would expect. It is amazing when fossils DO show up since their occurance is such a minute possibility.

What is MUCH more amazing, as he points out, is the Creationist model after the flood of all the creatures getting to where we find them now, and in only a few thousand years!!!! And talk about the need for evidence of a record! If these creatures had all existed in one place within the last few thousand years and migrated to their current locales, we would see evidence of THAT, to be sure!

No, that is much more improbable (I refuse to allude to a swear word as you did).

 

[troodon]

Ah, the info came from talk.origins.

Try again troodon.

Well, I just searched talkorigins for each of those transitional animals and nothing even close to those pictures popped up; 3 of them are not even mentioned. The pictures all seem to be from http://mywebpages.comcast.net/sixdays/image which leads me to question your talkorigins claim.

Now, if you surprise me and show me that this is from talkorigins I guarantee that they do not make the mistake you did and claim that each of these animals evolved from one another; that's a rookie mistake. To be an example of a transitional fossil one does not have to be a direct decendant or ancestor for the groups involved. Case in point is prosauropods. They themselves are too highly derived in most cases to be possible direct ancestors for sauropods and yet they are transitional between a smaller, bipedal saurischian dinosaurs and the massive sauropods (at least in most scenarios).

I do not know why you are afraid to post a link to your source.

But he never explained the evolution

I never explained your farcical representation of mammalian evolution because it is absurd; because you do not understand fossil lineages and seem unwilling to learn. Did you even bother visiting the link?

their so-called distance

This I did explain by stating:

a) they did not evolve directly between one another

b) there are massive lapses of time between the fossils

c) there are many examples of animals spanning all of Pangea (in addition to my old Brachiosaurus example, Dryosaurus is another)

difficulty of travel

As Vance stated, you seem to accept far more absurd things.

Also, do you honestly think the Appalachians pose a large problem to animals? Do you not think that there are populations of animals living on both the eastern and western sides of that mountain range as we speak?

never leaving behind and record.

Let's say that I'm a deer living in the middle of the forest. I die. Explain to me how I get fossilized.

Let's say I'm a bear living on a mountainside. I die. Explain to me how I get fossilized.

The conditions that allow fossilization are very rare and demand very quick burial as well as the proper composition of the surrounding terrain to properly replace the organic elements in the bones. Then the area where these conditions are met, and were animals are caught in those conditions, must remain almost completely undisturbed until we come along to collect the fossils.

The plethora of fossils you seem to dream evolution demands only exist in your head and in the heads of your tragic brothers in ignorance.

It's BS

 

[lucaspa]

My response in the other thread...and why I wanted photos.

Then you are going to have to go to the original articles for your photos. Many of them are hard to find. But if you are close to a relatively large university you should find these in the university library:

Transitional series
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.
Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.
2. Wolpoff, 1984, Paleobiol., 10: 389-406
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/science/12FOSSIL.html?tntemail1
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm
Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.
Reptiles to mammals
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
Whale transition:
1. http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0_fs.html
3. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
4. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/struthers.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
Transitional websites:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

I've attached one picture of a series of transitional individuals connecting two species of snails. See the differences in the shells on either end and then look at the intermediates. All are arranged in a chronological sequence.