Are there transitional fossils?

[gideon123]

I think people here have a misunderstanding. So did I at one time. I am a Christian, and also a scientist. I also have no problem with the general concept of evolution - although we certainly don't have a full knowledge of how 'evolution' works.

People might have got the impression that somehow there is some sort of 'transitional organism' that just pops up, between different species lines. This is not clear thinking. And it's not what biologists are saying. Please LISTEN to what the scientists are actually saying, before you criticize. Then you can decide ... agree or disagree.

Biologists are saying that natural variations, or mutations, happen constantly. Most don't survive because they are not well adapted to the current environment. But variations exist, and they developed over a long period of time. They didn't suddenly "fall out of the sky" yesterday.

NEXT ... when a dramatic change happens in the environment, the main species (predominant species) might suddenly disappear. It might die off. But possibly some of the mutations, who were living on the edge, do not die off. They are better adapted for the new change. Therefore, the new mutations begin to thrive. In other words - the mutations have existed for a long time, but possibly in a specific location (ecological niche). They come to the forefront, when conditions change and the primary species disappears.

Scientists are NOT saying that transitional species 'popped up behind a tree one day'. That is not the thinking.

So yes, you can find examples of transitional lifeforms. As well we should. But the people criticizing the process need to slow down and listen to what the scientists are actually saying.

And by the way - Evolution is not a threat to Biblical beliefs and it never has been. I fail to understand the huge controversy and dogma that surrounds this issue - on both sides.

All The Best,
Gideon

 

[xianghua]

It is new, since the gene insertion resulted in the creation of an entirely new gene, with a different function than was present in the first generation. These bacteria are not descended from individuals that glowed at all.

so are you saying that in one generation a bacteria can evolve a bioluminescence (including all the proteins that support this process like lucferase and luciferin)from a non bioluminescence?



as for the ttss to a flagellum- again: even their shared genes arent shared at all but homologous. its mean that even if we want to change only one ttss protein into a flagellum one- we will need at least several mutations. homologous proteins can be different in about 30-40% in their sequence. so its mean that we need about 30-40 amino acid changes only for one protein. but lets say that they are even iidentical. still you cant change a ttss into a flagellum. flagellum is spinning when a ttss isnt. ttss have toxins where flagellum have not. so we do need at least several changes to this transition. again my analogy: both watch and a cell-phone shared many parts: a battery, a screen and so on. but we cant change a watch into a cell-phone by adding only one part to the watch each step.

I have been telling you this whole time that it would only take a handful of mutations at most to transition from a secretion system to a flagella, NOT that it would take only a handful of mutations to produce a flagellum FROM SCRATCH.

if it was true then there is no problem to show by experiment how a bacteria with a ttss evolve a flagellum in the lab. for now no one even try to do this.

(again why your comparison of the watch becoming a phone is a garbage comparison, since it would be easier to just build a phone than to turn a watch into a phone).

no problem. you can show me how you will made a cell-phone stepwise if you want.

 

[xianghua]

I think people here have a misunderstanding. So did I at one time. I am a Christian, and also a scientist. I also have no problem with the general concept of evolution - although we certainly don't have a full knowledge of how 'evolution' works.

People might have got the impression that somehow there is some sort of 'transitional organism' that just pops up, between different species lines. This is not clear thinking. And it's not what biologists are saying. Please LISTEN to what the scientists are actually saying, before you criticize. Then you can decide ... agree or disagree.

Biologists are saying that natural variations, or mutations, happen constantly. Most don't survive because they are not well adapted to the current environment. But variations exist, and they developed over a long period of time. They didn't suddenly "fall out of the sky" yesterday.

NEXT ... when a dramatic change happens in the environment, the main species (predominant species) might suddenly disappear. It might die off. But possibly some of the mutations, who were living on the edge, do not die off. They are better adapted for the new change. Therefore, the new mutations begin to thrive. In other words - the mutations have existed for a long time, but possibly in a specific location (ecological niche). They come to the forefront, when conditions change and the primary species disappears.

Scientists are NOT saying that transitional species 'popped up behind a tree one day'. That is not the thinking.

So yes, you can find examples of transitional lifeforms. As well we should. But the people criticizing the process need to slow down and listen to what the scientists are actually saying.

And by the way - Evolution is not a threat to Biblical beliefs and it never has been. I fail to understand the huge controversy and dogma that surrounds this issue - on both sides.

All The Best,
Gideon

the problem is that some systems need at least several parts to be functional. so they cant evolve stepwise by evolution. even darwin admit that if such a system exist- the whole evolution theory is false.

 

[Speedwell]

the problem is that some systems need at least several parts to be functional. so they cant evolve stepwise by evolution.

That conclusion does not follow.

 

[Jimmy D]

the problem is that some systems need at least several parts to be functional. so they cant evolve stepwise by evolution. even darwin admit that if such a system exist- the whole evolution theory is false.

Your evidence is irreducible complexity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so are you saying that in one generation a bacteria can evolve a bioluminescence (including all the proteins that support this process like lucferase and luciferin)from a non bioluminescence?

Detailed explanation: E. coli strain 1 has 6 genes that can produce bioluminescence. However, this strain does not have that trait, as it distinctly lacks a gene which produces a necessary protein required for those 6 genes to be transcribed and active, so those genes do absolutely nothing but take up space in their genome. E. coli strain 2 has the gene that would produce the protein that would transcribe those 6 genes, but doesn't have those 6 genes, so it also doesn't glow. As it happens, strain 1 is resistant to an antibiotic strain 2 is not resistant to, and strain 2 is resistant to a different antibiotic that strain 1 is not resistant to. As that antibiotic resistance gene in strain 2 is on the same plasmid (ring of genetic material in bacteria that can be transferred from dead bacteria to living ones) as the gene that produces the protein that would transcribe the 6 bioluminescence genes, if you kill a bunch of E. coli strain 2, mix them up with living strain one, and, after giving it some time, put the mixture on a petri dish that has both antibiotics on it (a combination that would normally kill off both bacterial strains), and allow the petri dish to sit at warm temperatures for a few days, then all the bacterial colonies that form on the petri dish will glow and, by virtue of the fact that they were able to survive on the petri dish, be resistant to both antibiotics.

The ability to glow doesn't actually help them survive at all in this environment, it just is present by virtue of plasmids having multiple genes on them, so it went along for the ride. However, note that genes that can cause bioluminescence under the right circumstances can be present, though inert, without being expressed for generations until just one chance mutation (or plasmid absorption, in this case) activates what was once inactive, causing sudden, drastic physiological change within very few generations (just 1, in this case). Furthermore, this physiological change can be naturally selected for without having any direct benefit to survival, just as long as the genes responsible happen to be physically close to genes that promote survival, and the drastic physiological change doesn't absolutely destroy the chances of survival.

as for the ttss to a flagellum- again: even their shared genes arent shared at all but homologous. its mean that even if we want to change only one ttss protein into a flagellum one- we will need at least several mutations.

-_- you do know that when genes are referred to as homologous, that means that they code for the same protein, right? Homologous genes aren't necessarily identical in terms of their codons, but they have the same function and structure (same number of codons, same placement on genomes). Thus, the homologous genes between the set that produce secretion mechanisms and the set that produce flagella are the ones that DIDN'T significantly change between the two structures, and would not have demanded significant change during the transition between the two.

So, just so you know, when you say shared genes aren't shared at all but homologous, that's the same thing as saying "shared genes aren't shared at all but shared". It's a contradictory nonsense statement.

homologous proteins can be different in about 30-40% in their sequence. so its mean that we need about 30-40 amino acid changes only for one protein.

No, since there is a ton of redundancy in codons as well as amino acid function, this is not true. There are plenty of variations in hemoglobin proteins within our own species that have no negative effects and function about as well as each other. Furthermore, as genes function to produce multiple protein products, it is entirely possible for a gene to function as both producing a secretion mechanism protein and producing a flagella protein.

but lets say that they are even iidentical. still you cant change a ttss into a flagellum. flagellum is spinning when a ttss isnt.

It takes all of 1 motor protein to change that.

ttss have toxins where flagellum have not.

Actually, the base of a developing flagellum will actually stop developing and excrete toxic secretions in response to stress. Then, ones the conditions improve, the flagellum completes its formation. Literally part of the way through formation, flagella can serve as excretion mechanisms. Here's an example of a bacterial species that does this in response to temperature Yersinia enterocolitica - Wikipedia

so we do need at least several changes to this transition. again my analogy: both watch and a cell-phone shared many parts: a battery, a screen and so on. but we cant change a watch into a cell-phone by adding only one part to the watch each step.

You keep forgetting to mention that the watch has to remain with a function at each step. It would be really, really easy to change a watch into a phone if the watch didn't have to have any function during the whole process. Not so with living organisms, and stop with the garbage comparison already.

By the way, who said that during the transition between secretion mechanism and flagellum that the bacteria would ever stop producing working secretion mechanisms, or that the proto-flagellum structure had to have the same function as an actual flagellum or even work very well at doing anything aside from take up space? Physical traits don't have to be useful in and of themselves to get passed down if the genes that produce them are really close to genes that are beneficial to survival and reproduction.

It's a misconception to think that evolution cannot produce traits that have no significant function, or that such traits are automatically selected against. Or that selection against them always makes the trait disappear rather than building upon it to perform a function.

if it was true then there is no problem to show by experiment how a bacteria with a ttss evolve a flagellum in the lab. for now no one even try to do this.

You know, I wish I had caught this sooner and made a correction faster: just because I say that it would only take a few mutations to transition a secretion mechanism to a flagellum doesn't mean that's the evolutionary order of it. It's actually the other way around, in the case of type 3 secretion systems. Yeah, the secretion mechanism evolved from the flagellum, which evolved from a different secretion mechanism. It's like dolphins evolving fins from land based limbs that evolved from a different type of fin all over again, that type of situation.

Also, what have I told you about the same thing not happening twice in evolution? You can provide selective pressures that favor bacteria able to move, but that doesn't mean the adaptation that results would be a flagella. Who knows how many millions of years it took for those mutations to occur anyways?

no problem. you can show me how you will made a cell-phone stepwise if you want.

I gave you a link to a diy building a cellphone guide a while back. -_- also, google search "building a cell phone" and select videos in the search engine, and within the first 5 videos you should see a DIY building a cell phone video.

 

[xianghua]

thanks thor this explanation. as i expect: those genes already present in some of those bacteria genomes (actually plasmids). so when we mix those 2 strains we get this trait. but its not a new trait. it just moved from one bacteria to another one. its likely that the bacteria with those 6 genes just lost the other 2 genes. by the way: that those 2 genes do in this bacteria normaly?

So, just so you know, when you say shared genes aren't shared at all but homologous, that's the same thing as saying "shared genes aren't shared at all but shared". It's a contradictory nonsense statement.

actually there is more chance that if you replace those proteins you will get an invalid system. like replacing a part of a car and connect it into a bus for instance (wheel with wheel). in most cases it will not fit. the same for those proteins. one protein that fit with ttss may not fit well with flagellum. so you need to change those genes.

I gave you a link to a diy building a cellphone guide a while back. -_- also, google search "building a cell phone" and select videos in the search engine, and within the first 5 videos you should see a DIY building a cell phone video.

i found this one:

Make Your Own Cellphone From Scratch.: 6 Steps (with Pictures)

and its already need about several parts to its minimal function. so why do you think that a complex biological system can evolve by 1 part (protein or protein domain) each step?

 

[PsychoSarah]

thanks thor this explanation. as i expect: those genes already present in some of those bacteria genomes (actually plasmids). so when we mix those 2 strains we get this trait. but its not a new trait. it just moved from one bacteria to another one. its likely that the bacteria with those 6 genes just lost the other 2 genes. by the way: that those 2 genes do in this bacteria normaly?

The gene that serves to activate the 6 genes that cause glowing in the other bacteria are probably genes that activate a different gene entirely in the other bacterial strain that isn't present in the other strain. I honestly do not know their specific function, if any, but genes that produce proteins that activate other genes don't exactly have a huge range of possible functions.

You can't claim that the bacteria that has the 6 genes that can result in bioluminescence ever came from bioluminescent ancestors without admitting that humans had to have had ancestors with gills because of the presence of inactive genes in our genomes that, in other organisms, do in fact produce gills. So which is it, is this an entirely new trait derived through evolution, or must humans have ancestors with gills because we have some of the genes for gill production that are inactive in our bodies?

actually there is more chance that if you replace those proteins you will get an invalid system. like replacing a part of a car and connect it into a bus for instance (wheel with wheel). in most cases it will not fit. the same for those proteins. one protein that fit with ttss may not fit well with flagellum. so you need to change those genes.

Your statement is irrelevant and incorrect: many amino acids are chemically similar to each other, and often minor changes to proteins doesn't have any notable effect. This is part of the reason most mutations are neutral. Also, comparing human made machines to living organisms again, and your comparison actually really hurts you this time. So, assuming that connecting a bus to a more typical car by a wheel, the two can no longer function as vehicles, right? However, that doesn't mean they can function as something else. Now, between the two, they have more internal space. People could live inside either individually, but connected together, people could divide living spaces and specialize them to specific tasks. You acted as if this kind of drastic change would inherently result in something useless, but as long as it doesn't result in the bus and car getting destroyed, the situation can work out. The comparison is both a non sequitur and doesn't help you at all. If anything, it supports my point more.

I can tell you this right now: I'm personally not creative enough to devise anything that could lack use entirely. Even a random small rock can be a paperweight, or the most toxic of wastes used to deter predators. Produce all the random situations in which you produce garbage from working machines, and I'll easily come up with a new function that results from it. Since machines aren't alive, they can't be dead either, so any change in them is a change in function rather than absolute destruction or death.

i found this one:

Make Your Own Cellphone From Scratch.: 6 Steps (with Pictures)

and its already need about several parts to its minimal function. so why do you think that a complex biological system can evolve by 1 part (protein or protein domain) each step?

1. because biology doesn't work the same way as the machines we build
2. because in biology, there is no limit on how much can be added to a system at a time, so multiple parts of a bacterial flagellum can develop from mutations in one generation.
3. because in biology, intermediate steps easily can and observably often do have different functions than the end result.
4. Cell phones may have a singular function to you, but the reality is that a cell phone is a compilation of different parts with different functions. A cell phone is more on par with an entire cell than a flagellum, and even that would be a bad comparison because there is no natural chemical process that would encourage cell phone parts to come together into a cell phone. There are chemical processes that encourage cell parts to be attracted to one another, and these same chemical processes are integral in cellular function and easy to observe.
5. Your terrible and persistent comparisons of living organisms to the tools we build are so irrelevant to biology that they are entirely useless in terms of even challenging evolution to the most minimal extent. I sincerely do not understand why you persist with this type of comparison that was destroyed decades ago. Are you going to mention dust on the moon next?

 

[xianghua]

You can't claim that the bacteria that has the 6 genes that can result in bioluminescence ever came from bioluminescent ancestors without admitting that humans had to have had ancestors with gills because of the presence of inactive genes in our genomes that, in other organisms, do in fact produce gills. So which is it, is this an entirely new trait derived through evolution, or must humans have ancestors with gills because we have some of the genes for gill production that are inactive in our bodies?

since when humans have pseudogenes for gills? can you give a reference?

Your statement is irrelevant and incorrect: many amino acids are chemically similar to each other, and often minor changes to proteins doesn't have any notable effect. This is part of the reason most mutations are neutral. Also, comparing human made machines to living organisms again, and your comparison actually really hurts you this time. So, assuming that connecting a bus to a more typical car by a wheel, the two can no longer function as vehicles, right? However, that doesn't mean they can function as something else. Now, between the two, they have more internal space. People could live inside either individually, but connected together, people could divide living spaces and specialize them to specific tasks. You acted as if this kind of drastic change would inherently result in something useless, but as long as it doesn't result in the bus and car getting destroyed, the situation can work out. The comparison is both a non sequitur and doesn't help you at all. If anything, it supports my point more.

ok. first: i refer to changing a wheel of a car by a bus wheel. but lets take a spefici example: both myoglobin and hemoglobin are similar and have almost the same function. but you cant replace hemoglobin in a myoglobin. but lets say that you are right for the sake of the a rgument for now. again: its only a belief that the flagellum evolved from the ttss or the opposite.

 

[PsychoSarah]

since when humans have pseudogenes for gills? can you give a reference?

Sure
Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills
http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/11/19/acorn-worm-genome-reveals-gill-origins-of-human-pharynx/
And some diagrams of the structure that appears in embryos
https://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/embryos2.jpg

And a close up of a direct image of a human embryo with these structures http://medicine.academic.ru/pictures/medicine/130.jpg

Of course in humans, these gill flaps don't become gills (developing into jaw bones and the larynx, for example), however, in fish, they do. To be fair, since the analogous embryonic structures do form, calling the genes related to it "pseudogenes" was an error on my part.

ok. first: i refer to changing a wheel of a car by a bus wheel. but lets take a spefici example: both myoglobin and hemoglobin are similar and have almost the same function. but you cant replace hemoglobin in a myoglobin. but lets say that you are right for the sake of the a rgument for now. again: its only a belief that the flagellum evolved from the ttss or the opposite.

-_- the function of myoglobin and hemoglobin are entirely different, which is why you can't just interchange the two. Hemoglobin transports oxygen while myglobin stores it. If you understand anything about chemistry, you can understand how the chemical properties of the two must be different. However, I will explain: in order to be a transport system for oxygen (such as hemoglobin), it must bind to oxygen, but not in a particular strong way so that once the oxygen reaches its destination, there is no issue in the bond to the oxygen being broken. However, a storage system for oxygen must bind to it more tightly, so much so as to make it entirely inappropriate for oxygen transport and will only release it in an environment unusually low in oxygen (such as when you hold your breath). Plus, hemoglobin more than just transports oxygen; it also transports carbon dioxide and nitric oxide, and serves to regulate iron metabolism and protect against cellular damage as an antioxidant. Those last two functions aren't even in blood cells, but other tissues.

Furthermore, the genes for these proteins are located on entirely different chromosomes, so it would be unlikely that there was any sort of recent evolutionary connection between the two (one coming from a mutation on the other). How is this at all comparable? You arbitrarily assumed that just because the two proteins have similarities that, to me, that must mean there is a strong evolutionary connection between the two. The answer to that is no. Secretion systems and flagella aren't merely physically similar, but also genetically similar. In fact, they are so similar that converting developing flagella into secretion structures is a common stress response for bacteria. What more would I need to conclude a genetic relationship between the two?

Yet, you think that it is fair to compare myoglobin and hemoglobin, which do not have similarity in their genes and have exceedingly different structure (even heme, which is present in both, is not present in the same amount in both molecules). Just because their function sounds similar doesn't make these proteins physically similar or even that they have similar chemical properties.

Hemoglobin and Myoglobin

Additionally, did you fail to notice that the functions of secretion mechanisms and flagella are entirely different? On such a small scale, even minute changes in proteins can affect their function drastically. Similarity in function alone is not a good measure of how related the genes of one cellular structure or protein are to another.

 

[xianghua]

To be fair, since the analogous embryonic structures do form, calling the genes related to it "pseudogenes" was an error on my part.

thanks. so humans dont have pseudogenes for making gills.

-_- the function of myoglobin and hemoglobin are entirely different, which is why you can't just interchange the two.

its true that they have differences. but they both also binding oxygen and they both use heme molecule and a speciel pocket for it.

In fact, they are so similar that converting developing flagella into secretion structures is a common stress response for bacteria. What more would I need to conclude a genetic relationship between the two?

what? a bacteria can change a flagellum into a ttss in one generation?

 

[PsychoSarah]

thanks. so humans dont have pseudogenes for making gills.

Not any that I am personally aware of; the shared genes between humans and fish for the production of gills I was referring to are active to some extent during embryonic development for humans.

its true that they have differences. but they both also binding oxygen and they both use heme molecule and a speciel pocket for it.

-_- and your point is what exactly? Heme is present in more than just myoglobin and hemoglobin. It is also present in Neuroglobin, which has the exact same purpose as myoglobin except that it is present in different tissues, cytoglobin, the function of which is not entirely understood but thought to help prevent hypoxia in the brain when in a state of stress from a reduced oxygen environment, and in leghemoglobin, which is found in the roots of some plants and acts as an oxygen or nitrogen carrier for the benefit of symbiotic bacteria rather than the plant directly. Basically put, heme is a very versatile molecule, and it's presence in two given biomolecules doesn't demand that said biomolecules have some evolutionary relationship.

Function is not a determining factor for evolutionary relatedness. Treating it as such would only make people mistake convergent evolution for close evolutionary relationships more frequently. And again, since mild changes to protein products can have a drastic effect on function, it is a matter of what genes produce the compared proteins that must be considered first, then overall structure. Myoglobin and hemoglobin have very different chemical structures and different genes which contribute to them. It is unlikely for them to have a close evolutionary relationship.

what? a bacteria can change a flagellum into a ttss in one generation?

-_- yes, I brought that up to you before that certain bacteria that form flagella will instead, in response to stimuli, convert the partly formed flagella into a secretion system instead. I even gave you an example of a bacterial species that does it, how did you forget about that? Flagella and type 3 secretion systems are so similar to each other that a partly formed flagellum can easily be converted into such a secretion system by the bacteria.

Now, to say that this capability appears in just one generation would be erroneous, given that there would have to be genes present to promote this defensive response.

Something worth noting is that the evolution between flagella and secretion systems doesn't demand that the bacteria lose the ability to produce one or the other, so plenty of relatively passive mutations that don't do much can easily contribute to the development of either from the other. It could be that a closer precursor to the flagellum structure was one that essentially turned off the secretion mechanism when the bacteria wasn't under stress or in need of secreting toxins.

 

[USincognito]

Every species is transitional,

That's one of those pithy, and simultaneously (almost) accurate and utterly unhelpful. For one thing every species is not transitional, but only potentially transitional because they might go extinct in which case they're not going to transition into anything. The reason why it's unhelpful is because laymen are looking for something that represents a transitional in that it exhibits characteristics of two different taxa.

In the case of things she listed, they do represent transitional forms and a useful antidote to straw men conceptions like an iguana with fur for a reptile/mammal transition.

 

[USincognito]

ok. first: i refer to changing a wheel of a car by a bus wheel. but lets take a spefici example: both myoglobin and hemoglobin are similar and have almost the same function. but you cant replace hemoglobin in a myoglobin. but lets say that you are right for the sake of the a rgument for now. again: its only a belief that the flagellum evolved from the ttss or the opposite.

Funny you should mention globins because they're a powerful evidence for evolution.

2005
Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate
2007
αD-Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
2011
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/04/molbev.msr207.short
2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790312002709

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's one of those pithy, and simultaneously (almost) accurate and utterly unhelpful. For one thing every species is not transitional, but only potentially transitional because they might go extinct in which case they're not going to transition into anything. The reason why it's unhelpful is because laymen are looking for something that represents a transitional in that it exhibits characteristics of two different taxa.

Fair enough, I'll quite saying that, then, and rather point to specific examples both living and deceased without making the unhelpful statement. I appreciate you contributing to me improving my debate tactics. Productive criticism is the rarest form of criticism.

Although, I do have to comment that plenty of the fossil species we have found may have been evolutionary dead ends.

In the case of things she listed, they do represent transitional forms and a useful antidote to straw men conceptions like an iguana with fur for a reptile/mammal transition.

Why thank you, sir. I do hope that didn't sound snarky or anything. Also, have people really brought up iguanas with fur as a concept? That's one I have yet to hear, and a strange one, considering that iguanas didn't exist until long after the evolutionary split between mammals and reptiles.

 

[USincognito]

Although, I do have to comment that plenty of the fossil species we have found may have been evolutionary dead ends.

Agree completely.

Why thank you, sir. I do hope that didn't sound snarky or anything. Also, have people really brought up iguanas with fur as a concept? That's one I have yet to hear, and a strange one, considering that iguanas didn't exist until long after the evolutionary split between mammals and reptiles.

I have to admit I was engaging in a bit of straw manning myself because I couldn't think of any "half-X, half-Y" examples that I've seen recently. Your average Creationist does, from what I can tell, expect some chimera with contrasting, fully developed derived characteristics similar to my "example".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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 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.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

You seem to be presenting yourself as an expert in taxonomic classification. What are your qualifications and have you got any links to the papers you've published?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You seem to be presenting yourself as an expert in taxonomic classification. What are your qualifications and have you got any links to the papers you've published?

What good are the "experts"? They tested those finches DNA, found they had been interbreeding from the start, which means they were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never occurred. Yet again refuse to correct their incorrect classifications.

And what in my post did you find a problem with? The fact we observe infraspecific taxa within every species in the real world, or the fact there are none listed in the fossil record? Doesn't take a so-called "expert" to look at the world around them and see that the fossil record is so far divorced from reality its basically useless as an indicator of anything. Wasn't it those "experts" that told us for years dinosaurs were reptiles? Although we no longer believe that. Wasn't it those "experts" that incorrectly classified the Triceratops? Wasn't it those "experts" that told us for years about the Coelacanth, until we found them alive and tested their DNA of course? Wasn't it the "experts" that declared the earth was the center of the solar system and had the math to prove it at one time? Those epicycles finally died out, now if we can kill off the epicycles of evolution all will be better. Wasnt it the "experts" that declared the Milky-Way was the entire universe just a hundred years ago?

All those "experts" had published papers, and look where it got them, nowhere near the truth.

Paper blows away in the wind, but the truth remains for all to see.

 

[Jimmy D]

What good are the "experts"? They tested those finches DNA, found they had been interbreeding from the start, which means they were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never occurred. Yet again refuse to correct their incorrect classifications.

And what in my post did you find a problem with? The fact we observe infraspecific taxa within every species in the real world, or the fact there are none listed in the fossil record? Doesn't take a so-called "expert" to look at the world around them and see that the fossil record is so far divorced from reality its basically useless as an indicator of anything. Wasn't it those "experts" that told us for years dinosaurs were reptiles? Although we no longer believe that. Wasn't it those "experts" that incorrectly classified the Triceratops? Wasn't it those "experts" that told us for years about the Coelacanth, until we found them alive and tested their DNA of course? Wasn't it the "experts" that declared the earth was the center of the solar system and had the math to prove it at one time? Those epicycles finally died out, now if we can kill off the epicycles of evolution all will be better. Wasnt it the "experts" that declared the Milky-Way was the entire universe just a hundred years ago?

All those "experts" had published papers, and look where it got them, nowhere near the truth.

Paper blows away in the wind, but the truth remains for all to see.

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