Are there transitional fossils?

[pitabread]

first give me a definition of "fossils in the wrong place".

No. That's not how this works. You made a claim that "we find fossils (plural) in the wrong order". Support your claim. You can include whatever assumptions or definitions you want. I'm not doing your homework for you.

secondly- if we will do find such a fossil- do you will consider evolution as false?

This has nothing to do with anything. Do you have any examples?

 

[xianghua]

dolphins and Ichty did not have the same dorsal fin.

yes they do. again: you can see it clearly in the above image.

Fish generally have rays from the backbone that support the fin

who is talking about fish? we talking about a dolphin.

Uh, because you made the claim there are fossils out of sequence, that is why you should give us an example.

[/QUOTE]

sure. but first we need to define such a fossil.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolutionist don't need an argument because evolution speaks for itself and creationists have nothing but words in an old book to back them up.

Speaking of words, 'evolution' is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, adaptive evolution happens based on molecular mechanisms fully developed at creation. What your talking about is a philosophy of natural history that assumes exclusively naturalistic causes. To pretend they are the same that is a fallacy called equivocation. That's the nice thing about science, it defines it's terms meticulously so when someone like you wants to be fallacious, they are readily refuted definitively.

 

[xianghua]

This has nothing to do with anything. Do you have any examples?

here is one out of many:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes) | Biology Letters



"Any acrodontan—let alone an advanced agamid—in the Triassic is thus highly unexpected in the light of recent studies."

"Tikiguania estesi is widely accepted to be the earliest member of Squamata, the reptile group that includes lizards and snakes. It is based on a lower jaw from the Late Triassic of India"

"It is extremely unlikely that Tikiguania is an advanced agamid from the Triassic, and that the draconine jaw ‘morphotype’ has persisted largely unchanged for 216 Myr."
"

"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta), implying that all major clades of squamates such as iguanians, anguimorphs, snakes, scincomorphs and gekkotans had diverged in the Triassic. However, none of these groups appear unequivocally in the fossil record until substantially later [5]. Indeed, some recent palaeontological and molecular studies of squamate divergence dates have not mentioned Tikiguania, presumably because of its problematic nature"

 

[mark kennedy]

first give me a definition of "fossils in the wrong place".

The lack of essential developmental traits following the step wise progression of Darwinian gradualism.

secondly- if we will do find such a fossil- do you will consider evolution as false?

Define 'evolution' because this has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon in nature. It makes no sense that apes would progress from a chimpanzee/gorilla over a million years and then 2 million years ago the human ancestors have their cranial capacity nearly triple in size.

There is a million years between the A. Afarensis, A. Africanus and the emergence of the Oldovia fossils. In the middle are the Paranthropus (from Greek παρα, para "beside"; άνθρωπος, ánthropos "human"), that isn't consider one of our ancestors and they have a distinctive gorilla-like sagittal cranial crests.

Skull of Paranthropus boisei

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

There's your gap and fossils that don't belong there. The Paranthropus are transitional enough, but they are a transitional between chimpanzee and gorilla not ape and human.

 

[xianghua]

Define 'evolution' because this has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon in nature.

evolution= a common descent of all animals on earth. i gave aboce one fossil in the wrong order for instance (too modern to be so ancient- its like finding a human date about 100 my).

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do you keep going to hypotheticals? Why not deal with reality?

Yes, if you were to find a 300 million year old fossil that is identical with modern mammals, that will create huge problems for the evolutionary timetable. OK, now your assignment is to go out and find one. Just sitting here and claiming that, if hypothetically you would find one, that would hypothetically be problematic for evolution, is not a very convincing case.

There are such things (Fossils Refute Evolution, Harun Yahya)

Period: Carboniferous

Age: 300 million years

Region: Illinois, USA

The fossil record is exceedingly rich and its numbers are sufficient for us to comprehend the origin of life. When we examine fossils we see that they appear suddenly, separately and with all their unique structures, with no supposed “evolutionary” “transitional forms” preceding them. This is one of ” the proofs that Almighty Allah created all living things. One of the fossils showing that Creation is a manifest reality is the 300-million-year-old lobster fossil shown in the picture. The details of the bodies of decapods, such as crabs, shrimp and crawfish, can also be clearly seen in this 300-million-year-old fossil. Like all other living things, this life form has remained the same since the day it was first created and has undergone not even the slightest change since. (Marine Fossil Specimens, Harun Yahya)​

 

[mark kennedy]

evolution= a common descent of all animals on earth. i gave aboce one fossil in the wrong order for instance (too modern to be so ancient- its like finding a human date about 100 my).

It's two things:

Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. (The Free Dictionary)
​

As usual the evolutionist doesn't even know what the word, 'evolution', actually means. Of course that doesn't stop the curt, condescending corrections based on virtually nothing.

 

[pitabread]

As usual the evolutionist doesn't even know what the word, 'evolution', actually means.

The ToE includes common descent back to the first life on Earth and that all species on Earth are related via that common descent. Using "evolution" as a colloquialism to include that isn't really incorrect. Especially since you won't find otherwise in a modern biology textbook.

 

[The Stamp]

Speaking of words, 'evolution' is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, adaptive evolution happens based on molecular mechanisms fully developed at creation. What your talking about is a philosophy of natural history that assumes exclusively naturalistic causes. To pretend they are the same that is a fallacy called equivocation. That's the nice thing about science, it defines it's terms meticulously so when someone like you wants to be fallacious, they are readily refuted definitively.

Until someone comes up with a better way I for one will stick with what can be shown to work, Gods are figments of people's imaginations and have never been shown to be anything else, Gods give people nice warm feelings but don't seem to want to show themselves or take part in anything to do with reality, until Gods can find a way to get out of churches and into the real world it doesn't seem that we have any options.
Gods existence ends with people saying" I know there's a God because I felt him come into my heart", after that nothing it all fizzles out, it's then that the claims and the threats start.

 

[PsychoSarah]

what about this case?:

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes) | Biology Letters

Mmm, things do get difficult when you only have one fossil of the species, and just a part of jaw to work with. However, note this "Triassic beds that have a broad superficial exposure" reference. Basically, there are a few locations in which fissures have formed deep into the rock, allowing more recent animal bodies to drop into far older rock layers than is typical. As such, fossils found at these specific locations have to be dated very carefully, and in consideration of other fossils found elsewhere. Given how rare fossils are in general, and that it is uncommon for animal bodies to end up in these fissures and fossilize, this dilemma is fairly rare. It's easy to tell what rock layers have been exposed due to the wear on them.

So, fossils found in these specific places can't be dated accurately using radioactive dating alone. During such exposure events, far more fossils are destroyed as they are exposed to the elements than form. Basically, you found a very special case... potentially. Honestly, it's still technically possible that that fossil is from a creature that lived in the Triassic, but due to the structure of the jaw and where the fossil happened to be found, it's reasonable to doubt that.

 

[USincognito]

why? we can claim that mammals or mammal-like creature evolved twice. i doesnt see any limitation for evolution to evolve a similar creature twice. aka convergent evolution.

Mammals can't evolve twice. If they did, that would falsify evolution. You really need to learn about evolution before offering an opinion on it and trotting out "gotchas".

again: i doesnt see any problem to push back both reptiles and mammals. creatures are pushing back every time.

Of course you don't. You don't understand evolution so I can see why it's a mystery to you.

 

[USincognito]

Why do you keep going to hypotheticals? Why not deal with reality?

Because they can't argue with reality so they have to go with making stuff up. It's like they can't deal with the fact that evolution hasn't been falsified so they have to claim that it's unfalsifiable. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

 

[doubtingmerle]

yes they do. again: you can see it clearly in the above image.

Uh, no you haven't proven the dolphin and Ichty had the same dorsal fin. You just have pictures that show they are similar. Of course. We have agreed to that. Different creature can evolve dorsal fins with similar shape because it is a simple adaption for a needed feature. Now if you can prove that the same DNA was modified, you would have something, but as we no longer have surviving DNA of the Ichty, you will never prove that. And you have not proven that the two use the same structures to build the dorsal fins.

The Dolphin and Ichty are different creatures that came from different evolutionary path. The Dophin shares features that all mammals have, but the Ichty does not have the distinct mammal features.

 

[Herman Hedning]

There are such things (Fossils Refute Evolution, Harun Yahya)

Are you actually citing Harun Yahya as an authority of anything? For realz?

 

[pitabread]

Are you actually citing Harun Yahya as an authority of anything? For realz?

No kidding. I don't think he looked at what he was copy-pasting before he copy-pasted.

 

[USincognito]

Speaking of words, 'evolution' is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, adaptive evolution happens based on molecular mechanisms fully developed at creation. What your talking about is a philosophy of natural history that assumes exclusively naturalistic causes. To pretend they are the same that is a fallacy called equivocation. That's the nice thing about science, it defines it's terms meticulously so when someone like you wants to be fallacious, they are readily refuted definitively.

Puh-leez. Just stop. You're not impressing anyone Mark. They know those are the robots they're looking for.

 

[USincognito]

yes they do. again: you can see it clearly in the above image.

Not all Ichthyosaurs had dorsal fins. They only evolved in the late Triassic. Also their are fundamental physiological differences between Ichthyosaurs and cetaceans - one is reptile, the other mammal; the former has four flippers and and vertical fluke because they moved size to side like a reptile whereas the latter has two flippers and moved up and down like a mammal with a horizontal fluke.

 

[mark kennedy]

Puh-leez. Just stop. You're not impressing anyone Mark. They know those are the robots they're looking for.

It's an obvious fact, I'm not surprised your just going to deny it in circles, you always do. Notice there is not scientific definition for the term used as a rebuttal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's an obvious fact, I'm not surprised your just going to deny it in circles, you always do. Notice there is not scientific definition for the term used as a rebuttal.

No, you're wrong. It's you and only you who are trying to turn evolution in to a philosophy when the rest of us are talking about science.
Also, your definition of evolution is begging the question because of three simple words: "developed at creation". It is the use of those three words that shows that you are the one is not talking about evolution scientifically since you're the one who is bringing religion in to it.