Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

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

I notice you were unable to answer my question. If there was total agreement then PE would never have been invented.

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.

Three birds older than Archie: Anchiornus, Xiaotingia, and Aurornis.
Maybe not exactly modern birds but the evidence points to these three being birds nonetheless, so it cannot be a transitional form for the origin of birds.

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?

 

[HenryM]

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 was key to my deconversion from creationism.



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 featured 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?

You should not only look for "transitional" fossils but for uncountable sideways, upways, downways and other direction fossils.

Because if there is such thing as random mutation that leads to new form of life, randomness has to move in all directions, not only in one that's "successful". And although those directions that prove "unsuccessful" would cease to exist, they would still first have to exist in enough quantities, plus there would have to be a massive number of those "failed tests".

In a random environment, failed tests are so more numerous than successful it's not even funny. That's, for example, painfully obvious in programming. So those sideways, upways, downways and other direction fossils would have to be everywhere and not only fossils that one chooses to interpret as a straight line from points A to B. And even those don't exist outside of one's interpretation.

 

[Colter]

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.



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?

There are no transitional fossils for the simple reason that they never existed. Mutations were sudden. In my theology celestials implanted the primitive life forms which evolved into life as we know it. In some sence evolution was fostered by these same "Life Carriers". Contained within evolution of life is the purposive potential of the source of life.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You should not only look for "transitional" fossils but for uncountable sideways, upways, downways and other direction fossils.

Because if there is such thing as random mutation that leads to new form of life, randomness has to move in all directions, not only in one that's "successful". And although those directions that prove "unsuccessful" would cease to exist, they would still first have to exist in enough quantities, plus there would have to be a massive number of those "failed tests".

In a random environment, failed tests so more numerous than successful it's not even funny. That's, for example, painfully obvious in programming. So those sideways, upways, downways and other direction fossils would have to be everywhere and not only fossils that one chooses to interpret as a straight line from points A to B. And even those don't exist outside of one's interpretation.

All this does is how that you don't understand what the science behind the theory of evolution says.

 

[HenryM]

All this does is how that you don't understand what the science behind the theory of evolution says.

Well you don't understand it more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well you don't understand it more.

Now that's just a childish comment.
In evolution, the mutations that don't benefit the population die out since the individuals that have said mutations die before they can mate or do not produce enough offspring to pass on their mutations wholesale. Combined with the fact that the chance of animal carcasses becoming fossilized is really high, the chance of you finding the fossil of an extinct animal with a harmful mutation is going to be slim to nil.

 

[Papias]

Yes, there are - hundreds of them.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Also, feel free to ask at the paleontology dept of your local university. They'll not only be happy to inform you of so many of them, they might also have some on hand.

In Christ-

Papias

P.S. On first read, I thought your title was "are there any transgender fossils?" I thought Hmmmm... That won't fossilize well! Ha ha!

 

[HenryM]

Now that's just a childish comment.
In evolution, the mutations that don't benefit the population die out since the individuals that have said mutations die before they can mate or do not produce enough offspring to pass on their mutations wholesale. Combined with the fact that the chance of animal carcasses becoming fossilized is really high, the chance of you finding the fossil of an extinct animal with a harmful mutation is going to be slim to nil.

No, don't kid yourself. You have no grasp of it.

 

[HenryM]

Yes, there are - hundreds of them.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Also, feel free to ask at the paleontology dept of your local university. They'll not only be happy to inform you of so many of them, they might also have some on hand.

In Christ-

Papias

P.S. On first read, I thought your title was "are there any transgender fossils?" I thought Hmmmm... That won't fossilize well! Ha ha!

After millions of years in the making, hundreds of fossils interpreted as "transitional" are found. My o my, so much?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, don't kid yourself. You have no grasp of it.

And by what merit can you say that? Are you a biologist?

 

[HenryM]

And by what merit can you say that? Are you a biologist?

On the merit that it's obvious you don't know what are you talking about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

On the merit that it's obvious you don't know what are you talking about.

So you're not a biologist. Do you have any scientific training or education past high school?

 

[HenryM]

Yes, sure. But you see, I don't need to know your education, because your explanations tell all I need to now. If somebody gave you a diploma you feel entitled to speak about evolution, you should sue them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, sure. But you see, I don't need to know your education, because your explanations tell all I need to now. If somebody gave you a diploma you feel entitled to speak about evolution, you should sue them.

If anything else, this just tells me that you know jack-all about evolution.
Tell me how I was wrong in what I said in post #4, since you are OBVIOUSLY oh-so smart and oh-so clever.

 

[HenryM]

If anything else, this just tells me that you know jack-all about evolution.
Tell me how I was wrong in what I said in post #4, since you are OBVIOUSLY oh-so smart and oh-so clever.

I really do not have to tell you anything.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I really do not have to tell you anything.

Yes you do. It's called 'debating and discussing'. You said something before, I responded to it, you said that I was wrong and I then asked how I was wrong. Now, in a sincere debate or discussion, you would then go and say how exactly I was wrong and illuminate me.

 

[HenryM]

Yes you do. It's called 'debating and discussing'. You said something before, I responded to it, you said that I was wrong and I then asked how I was wrong. Now, in a sincere debate or discussion, you would then go and say how exactly I was wrong and illuminate me.

No I don't.

 

[Larniavc]

You should not only look for "transitional" fossils but for uncountable sideways, upways, downways and other direction fossils.

Because if there is such thing as random mutation that leads to new form of life, randomness has to move in all directions, not only in one that's "successful". And although those directions that prove "unsuccessful" would cease to exist, they would still first have to exist in enough quantities, plus there would have to be a massive number of those "failed tests".

In a random environment, failed tests are so more numerous than successful it's not even funny. That's, for example, painfully obvious in programming. So those sideways, upways, downways and other direction fossils would have to be everywhere and not only fossils that one chooses to interpret as a straight line from points A to B. And even those don't exist outside of one's interpretation.

You're right that mutations are random but evolution is not.

The key here is selection. Only the mutations which don't have a negative impact on fitness are propagated through the population over time.

Consequently the fossil record is repleat with remains that survived.

The lethal mutations caused the organism to die so the chance of it propagating it's genes throughout the population is very low.

This is how random (as you correctly point out) mutations cause evolution is specific directions: evolution happens in the was that fits the demand of the environment (as opposed to evolving in any old direction).

You are quite right that evolution would go off is multiple direction were it not for the effect of the environment.

In the same way that we would float off in any direction were it not for gravity.

All the best.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I don't.

Yes you do. You have been asked a question, and it behooves you to answer that question like any genuine and sincere person will. If you do not answer my question, then I am left with nothing to conclude that you are not a genuine or sincere person, you truly do not know anything about evolution and you are merely here to act like a troll.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're right that mutations are random but evolution is not.

The key here is selection. Only the mutations which don't have a negative impact on fitness are propagated through the population over time.

Consequently the fossil record is repleat with remains that survived.

The lethal mutations caused the organism to die so the chance of it propagating it's genes throughout the population is very low.

This is how random (as you correctly point out) mutations cause evolution is specific directions: evolution happens in the was that fits the demand of the environment (as opposed to evolving in any old direction).

You are quite right that evolution would go off is multiple direction were it not for the effect of the environment.

In the same way that we would float off in any direction were it not for gravity.

All the best.

And you will be told that you are wrong in 4... 3... 2... 1...