Are there transitional fossils?

[xianghua]

It's not. This has been explained to you countless times by now. Why do you keep posting this nonsense?
Just because you want your pet theory to be true doesn't make it true.

i also explained to you why you are wrong. but you keep claiming the same when in reality we find many genes in far species but not in some species between them. and the "explanation" for this non-hierarchy is a gene loss.

 

[Skreeper]

i also explained to you why you are wrong. but you keep claiming the same when in reality we find many genes in far species but not in some species between them. and the "explanation" for this non-hierarchy is a gene loss.

The experts who actually know what they're talking about disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them? Do you have some form of education in the field? Have you published a paper in a relevant peer-reviewed journal?

 

[xianghua]

The experts who actually know what they're talking about disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them? Do you have some form of education in the field? Have you published a paper in a relevant peer-reviewed journal?

those same experts agree that there is many cases of non-hierarchy. they just try to solve this by convergent evolution or gene loss. the facts are the same for both creationists and evolutionists (again: its a fact that we find the same genes in far species but not in some species between them). the interpretation is different.

 

[RickG]

The easiest way to disprove evolution would be to see all life forms, both flora and fauna, in the oldest sedimentary layers of strata. Has anyone been able to do this?

 

[xianghua]

The easiest way to disprove evolution would be to see all life forms, both flora and fauna, in the oldest sedimentary layers of strata. Has anyone been able to do this?

i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.

 

[Speedwell]

i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.

No, that's how a creationist would approach the problem, but it won't work. Ad hoc explanations and reliance on imaginary and unevidenced processes aren't acceptable.

 

[doubtingmerle]

i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.

Your answer to every evidence for evolution seems to be, "But what if we didn't have all this evidence?"

If we didn't have all this evidence, then we would be back to square one figuring out what happened. If we didn't have all this evidence, then it would be wrong to claim that we had evidence.

But you keep on arguing that, if scientists didn't have evidence, then they would make it up. Sorry that is not how science works. Somehow you think it is sufficient to attack the credibility of scientists by making up what scientists would do in a hypothetical situation where they had no evidence for evolution. You have no proof that they would do what you claim.

Fortunately for us, the evidence for evolution is readily available. You have been shown the evidence over and over. And we can expect your response: "But what if there wasn't all this evidence? They would just make it up."

 

[doubtingmerle]

actually, even darwin admit that the lacking of transitional fossils is because of the poor fossil record (at time). evolution was still valid even if we will not find any transitional fossil.

Right, there is plenty of other evidence, even if we had no transitional fossils. And so, even though Darwin had little in the way of transitional fossils, he still could follow the evidence to say that evolution occurred. And he could predict that transitional fossils migh be found. And he was right. Transitional fossils were found.

also remember that some claims that any fossil is a transitional, so it will be funny in this case to say that evolution predict transitional fossils. if we never found the mammals-like reptiles evolution was still be valid.

I will say this one more time. Evolution predicts that transitional creatures existed. It can predict that some transitional fossil could be found, but it cannot say for sure because of the spotty nature of fossils in the record. However, many transitionals have been found, and that is evidence for evolution.

not realy. i have showed to you that even the design model predict "transitional fossils". like we find in human engineering.

Uh, only if your design model consists of a designer who tinkers with his design, and keeps coming up with new variations of creatures. That is why I kept asking you what you believed. If you believe in the tinkering designer, than the fossil record does not refute you. There are other things that refute you. But if you believe everything was created ex nihlo in one week, then the fossil record refutes you. That is why I asked you over and over what you believed. But you refused to commit. Instead you selected the jello model of opinions, in which you let your view vary all over the place, and thus nobody is able to talk about what you believe. That proves nothing. That only proves that it is impossible to nail jello to the wall. But we already knew that.

 

[RickG]

i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.

Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.

-_- do you not understand that there are easy to measure limits on how fast and how slow evolution can occur? The conditions that would cause it to entirely stop don't exist (it would demand that mutation not occur), and there is only so fast that species can reproduce and experience mutations before the rate of mutation becomes too much for the population to be sustainable (which is why exposure to high levels of radiation and other mutagens can kill you and prevent you from having healthy enough offspring to make it to maturity).

You act as if a tenant of evolution is "there is no such thing as biological limits", which couldn't be further from the truth. Theories are made because there are limits on the possibilities in our universe. No matter how much I flip a coin, there are only three possible outcomes (assuming the coin lands): heads, tails, or the rare occasion that it lands on its side. An animal with no HOX genes cannot exist naturally and be native to this planet. Argon based life will never exist on any planet and be naturally occurring (since argon is resistant to forming bonds).

There's no point in building a theory around a "free for all".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.

So the theory is unfalsifiable as they'll just make new claims everytime the evidence falsifies one belief. At least someone admitted it finally.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- do you not understand that there are easy to measure limits on how fast and how slow evolution can occur? The conditions that would cause it to entirely stop don't exist (it would demand that mutation not occur), and there is only so fast that species can reproduce and experience mutations before the rate of mutation becomes too much for the population to be sustainable (which is why exposure to high levels of radiation and other mutagens can kill you and prevent you from having healthy enough offspring to make it to maturity).

You act as if a tenant of evolution is "there is no such thing as biological limits", which couldn't be further from the truth. Theories are made because there are limits on the possibilities in our universe. No matter how much I flip a coin, there are only three possible outcomes (assuming the coin lands): heads, tails, or the rare occasion that it lands on its side. An animal with no HOX genes cannot exist naturally and be native to this planet. Argon based life will never exist on any planet and be naturally occurring (since argon is resistant to forming bonds).

There's no point in building a theory around a "free for all".

Look up "the law of recurrent variation. They found in actual plant and animal husbandry that the same forms kept repeating with mutation, so even the forms within the species is limited.

Not that it matters, as they said they'll just keep making new claims as the old ones are falsified. A theory that can't be falsified is no theory at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wait, we have found thousands of mammal-like reptile fossils before there was ever a mammal. Dozens of genera, probably hundreds of species, thousands of fossils.

And yet you say there are none found before the first mammal appeared abruptly?

Bzzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for trying.

See List of pelycosaurs - Wikipedia .

Yah well for over 100 years they claimed dinosaurs were reptiles, so you'll have to excuse me if I think they don't know half of what they claim to know about what kind of animal those bones belong too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A fossil in the process of fossilization will be a partially fossilized animal.
And I take it that you've never heard of the Gobi Desert then? No surprise there.

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

 

[Justatruthseeker]

actually, even darwin admit that the lacking of transitional fossils is because of the poor fossil record (at time). evolution was still valid even if we will not find any transitional fossil. also remember that some claims that any fossil is a transitional, so it will be funny in this case to say that evolution predict transitional fossils. if we never found the mammals-like reptiles evolution was still be valid.



not realy. i have showed to you that even the design model predict "transitional fossils". like we find in human engineering.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.

So what?

We've already been told:

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

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

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the theory is unfalsifiable as they'll just make new claims everytime the evidence falsifies one belief.

Science in general, and evolution specifically, runs on a sliding scale.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If you read through this thread, you will see that we spent a lot of time talking about the one aspect of mammal and reptile anatomy that does fossilize well, the bones of the jaw and ear. And there we find exactly what evolution predicts. Early animals have the reptile jawbone, but none have the mammallian jaw. Then we see a long series of transitionals over many millions of years, with jawbones progressively more like mammals, until creatures finally appear with the two back bones of the reptile's jaw converted into bones of the inner ear of the mammal.


Actually wikipedia is a strong source of information on biology (with the caveat that sometimes unqualified people post there). See, for instance, this exhaustive reference on Theropoda with multiple citations: Theropoda - Wikipedia .

Actually some of the so-called transition forms were alive when early mammals already existed, so therefore they are unlikely to be true transitions. This also applies to the dino to bird transition, the most likely explanation is what evolutionists call "convergence".

 

[Gene2memE]

Actually some of the so-called transition forms were alive when early mammals already existed, so therefore they are unlikely to be true transitions. This also applies to the dino to bird transition, the most likely explanation is what evolutionists call "convergence".

"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.