Are there transitional fossils?

[PsychoSarah]

Okay! So to see a "transitional" between fish and four legged land walkers they would expect to see a fish not dissimilar to many species now...Okay! Got it!

-_- the person you were responding to referenced Tiktaalik, which looked like this

this is a recreation next to one of the fossils https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/92/28/ee/9228eebf307f4578e8b159b3d3adf704.jpg

Of course, since this organism existed over 300 million years ago in an environment dissimilar to modern day, there aren't many modern organisms that resemble it. However, what do heavily resemble it are ancient, early amphibians such as this one one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...egacephalus.JPG/800px-Eryops_megacephalus.JPG

However, what makes it noteworthy as a transitional species is that it has characteristics of both groups it is a transition of (fish and tetrapods), as well as intermediate traits. It has the gills, fins, and scales of a fish. Yet, it also has the ribs, neck, pectoral girdle, and lungs of a tetrapod. In addition, it's limb bones and joints, as well as ear region, are intermediate between that of fish and tetrapods. While there are no modern organisms with all of the precise traits of Tiktaalik, that is wholly irrelevant to it being a transitional species (plus, plenty of modern species have some of the traits. Lungfish even have the combination of lungs and gills). What makes it transitional is that it has traits that bridge between two groups of organisms.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let’s see if I get this correct,

So they take a mostly impression fossil of some small creature in Wyoming (a place where as far as we can tell horses never existed before very recent times), and change the feet to look similar to hooves, add a distinct tail, make a model and assemble it just so, stand it up and put in positions that MAY BE similar to how a horse would stand...and now insist people believe that something similar to could have...and viola’...an alleged scientific fact.

That’s not how good science works...that’s how some scientists work!

-_- Change the feet? What is this, the 1800s? Bones are not broken or reshaped to fit, the collective knowledge people have about anatomy are used to position bones which are out of place. I mean, this one is still embedded in the rock in the same position in which it fossilized, so there goes that argument out the window https://www.fossilera.com/p/496/full-specimen-cropped2.jpg

Here's another one https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/bc/3e/f7/bc3ef758757b4166d84e164fba92345e.jpg

 

[Gene2memE]

Are there transitional fossils? Yes.

Are creationists willing to deny the basic evidence of this? Yes. Until they're blue in the faces.

 

[USincognito]

Xiang...they just are unable to grasp purely logical thought...they require the historical story invented to govern all conclusions. What you said in your last post is totally reasonable and makes perfect sense but as we have found in deprogramming cult victims and rescuing people from Stockholm syndrome, all attempts to make sense or open their mind just kicks them back into the pre-programmed loop. They cannot eve stay on only one subject or point without bringing in all the other aspects programmed in which returns them to the first unresolved point.

 

[Jimmy D]

Differentiate what we have from the story told...

View attachment 199622

Pull out all the imaginary lines where there is nothing real but assumption and there is my explanation. What you see is what you get...pick any tree or man made hierarchy and the same rule applies...once intelligently designed it can be used to persuade but what do we actually have? That is what should shape the hypothesis only here the hypothesis was accepted as true first, and then everything (including the multiple errors and intentional falsehoods) is made to appear to fit. You asked I answered.

Your explanation for the chronological sorting of specimins found in the fossil record is that a diagram you found on the internet is based on assumptions? And you expect people to take you seriously?

Maybe you can explain how it can be "used to persuade" us of intelligent design.

Sadly all you have done is waffle on about assumptions, it's quite disappointing and more importantly false. The hypothesis was formulated, based on observations and repeatedly tested for the last 200 years, how is that an assumption?

You really are beginning to show your true colours with this post, my friend, you are offering nothing but childish criticisms of the TOE.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because it is not "in between" as most evolutionists claim and it is a fish not unlike many living species today...if Tik walked up on land it would have suffocated and died.

"What would you accept as a transitional between fish and amphibian? I have asked before and you refused to answer."

Wrong I have answered this, but will try a different angle and maybe you can comprehend this one. A semi-fish amphibian, or a quasi-amphibian fish, would do fine for ME...(now from some, maybe not you, will come the blah, blah, blah to explain why we should not expect to find such things)

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, you are looking for something like Tik?

Found it.

 

[xianghua]

You think that....

we also know that a car will not evolve into an airplane. so why we should believe that a fish can evolve into human?

Is logical? Seriously?

and a frog evolving into a princess (human) is logical? seriously? and a motor evolving without any designer is logical? seriously?

 

[xianghua]

-_- the person you were responding to referenced Tiktaalik, which looked like this

this is a recreation next to one of the fossils https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/92/28/ee/9228eebf307f4578e8b159b3d3adf704.jpg

Of course, since this organism existed over 300 million years ago in an environment dissimilar to modern day, there aren't many modern organisms that resemble it. However, what do heavily resemble it are ancient, early amphibians such as this one one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...egacephalus.JPG/800px-Eryops_megacephalus.JPG

However, what makes it noteworthy as a transitional species is that it has characteristics of both groups it is a transition of (fish and tetrapods), as well as intermediate traits. It has the gills, fins, and scales of a fish. Yet, it also has the ribs, neck, pectoral girdle, and lungs of a tetrapod. In addition, it's limb bones and joints, as well as ear region, are intermediate between that of fish and tetrapods. While there are no modern organisms with all of the precise traits of Tiktaalik, that is wholly irrelevant to it being a transitional species (plus, plenty of modern species have some of the traits. Lungfish even have the combination of lungs and gills). What makes it transitional is that it has traits that bridge between two groups of organisms.

i think that the mudskipper is even more fit with the transitional fossil idea then the tiktaalik. the problem of course is that this fish appearing too late in the fossil record to be a missing link. but if it was about 400 my old i think that they will consider it as a missing link
too.

 

[Jimmy D]

and a frog evolving into a princess (human) is logical? seriously? and a motor evolving without any designer is logical? seriously?

No it's not logical, it's stupid, which is why I questioned Pshun's post that congratulated your logic.

You said....

. we also know that a car will not evolve into an airplane. so why we should believe that a fish can evolve into human?

Newsflash.... no one thinks a fish can evolve into a human, apart from maybe a four year old.

And no, no motor has "evolved" without a designer, whatever that means. Obviously a motor is designed and manufactured, why would anyone suggest otherwise.

 

[Jimmy D]

i think that the mudskipper is even more fit with the transitional fossil idea then the tiktaalik. the problem of course is that this fish appearing too late in the fossil record to be a missing link. but if it was about 400 my old i think that they will consider it as a missing link
too.

"Missing link"? This isn't Victorian London guvnor.

 

[AV1611VET]

Newsflash.... no one thinks a fish can evolve into a human, apart from maybe a four year old.

Do we have a DNA trail that goes back to fish?

 

[Jimmy D]

Do we have a DNA trail that goes back to fish?

Why do you ask?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you ask?

You don't think it's a legitimate question?

 

[pshun2404]

-_- the person you were responding to referenced Tiktaalik, which looked like this

this is a recreation next to one of the fossils https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/92/28/ee/9228eebf307f4578e8b159b3d3adf704.jpg

Of course, since this organism existed over 300 million years ago in an environment dissimilar to modern day, there aren't many modern organisms that resemble it. However, what do heavily resemble it are ancient, early amphibians such as this one one https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...egacephalus.JPG/800px-Eryops_megacephalus.JPG

However, what makes it noteworthy as a transitional species is that it has characteristics of both groups it is a transition of (fish and tetrapods), as well as intermediate traits. It has the gills, fins, and scales of a fish. Yet, it also has the ribs, neck, pectoral girdle, and lungs of a tetrapod. In addition, it's limb bones and joints, as well as ear region, are intermediate between that of fish and tetrapods. While there are no modern organisms with all of the precise traits of Tiktaalik, that is wholly irrelevant to it being a transitional species (plus, plenty of modern species have some of the traits. Lungfish even have the combination of lungs and gills). What makes it transitional is that it has traits that bridge between two groups of organisms.

Just an extinct variety of fish similar to many modern species. In your link can you not notice the drastic imaginary additions? There are no little leg structures, no slimy almost amphibian like skin, the head is shaped about right but the topical characteristics are all imposed to create the illusion, no rear legs in the actual fossil at all (so may not have been any), nothing there to indicate what the tail looked like, no way to know the shape of the actual rib cage from the broken flattened fragments (so many hypothesis based assumptions, surely you can see this with your own eyes)...and in light of the Ichthyosaurus hoax (two unrelated fossils superimposed with added plaster pieces, and so many others) this technique of making something that is not, appear to be what it allegedly was, and the use of contrived images, is a standard propaganda technique...why on earth would any rational person believe this?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i think that the mudskipper is even more fit with the transitional fossil idea then the tiktaalik. the problem of course is that this fish appearing too late in the fossil record to be a missing link. but if it was about 400 my old i think that they will consider it as a missing link
too.

-_- I have no idea what point you are trying to make with the mudskipper comment. They are physiologically more like fish than Tiktaalik. There are transitional fossils like mudskippers, in case you didn't know (in terms of having lungs and less developed fins for walking on).

Furthermore, body plans of modern animals are drastically different than ancient ones. Especially once you begin going farther back than 300 million years. I mean, there are tons of fossil organisms from the Cambrian (540-490 million years ago) that we can't even tell if they are a plant or an animal, or when it comes to animals, we can't tell what end is the head and what end is the tail, like with this creature https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0f/f2/1f/0ff21f35db6b77fd794d93d310199e76.jpg

Basically put, there is no confusing a species that lived 300+ million years ago with a modern one. Unless it is some organism such as the horseshoe crab, which are hardly the norm (they existed more than 400 million years ago, and still exist today). You certainly aren't going to find a mammal fossil older than the earliest amphibian fossil, no matter how hard you look.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just an extinct variety of fish similar to many modern species. In your link can you not notice the drastic imaginary additions? There are no little leg structures, no slimy almost amphibian like skin, the head is shaped about right but the topical characteristics are all imposed to create the illusion, no rear legs in the actual fossil at all (so may not have been any), nothing there to indicate what the tail looked like, no way to know the shape of the actual rib cage from the broken flattened fragments (so many hypothesis based assumptions, surely you can see this with your own eyes)...

-_- there's more than 1 fossil of this organism, to the left is the body, the right is the forelimb
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/umacj/2010/tomiya-61/XML/image001.jpg
I mean, when the species was first discovered, 3 different individuals were found.
Here's the fossil that has the back end of the animal http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1686_2e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg

As for the coloration, you're right, that's speculation, based on what colors for organisms in general make sense for their environments. However, the presence of scales is not speculation. If you look closely at the backs of the fossils, they preserve the scales https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Tiktaalik_belgium_II.jpg
In fact, all the fossils I can find seem to preserve the scales to some extent.

and in light of the Ichthyosaurus hoax (two unrelated fossils superimposed with added plaster pieces, and so many others) this technique of making something that is not, appear to be what it allegedly was, and the use of contrived images, is a standard propaganda technique...why on earth would any rational person believe this?

Uh, hoax? Actually, an art gallery that acquired the fossil by which the GENUS was identified MISTOOK it for a plaster cast in the 1980s. In 2008, Dean Lomax of the University of Manchester recognized that it was a real fossil on display, and thus the genus was named.

You got the story backwards, it was a real fossil mistaken for plaster, not plaster mistaken for a real fossil. Also, there are multiple fossils for this GENUS class of organisms, like this one http://www.nhm.ac.uk/content/dam/nh...ogy/ichthyosaurus-acutirostris-two-column.jpg

And this one https://jamesmulraine.files.wordpre...osaurus_anningae_had_l-a-15_1424436408435.jpg

Not to mention this one http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/ichthyosaurus.jpg

 

[pshun2404]

i think that the mudskipper is even more fit with the transitional fossil idea then the tiktaalik. the problem of course is that this fish appearing too late in the fossil record to be a missing link. but if it was about 400 my old i think that they will consider it as a missing link
too.

Definitely! If they were trying to present a reasonable example they would used the mudskipper.

 

[pshun2404]

-_- there's more than 1 fossil of this organism, to the left is the body, the right is the forelimb
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/umacj/2010/tomiya-61/XML/image001.jpg
I mean, when the species was first discovered, 3 different individuals were found.
Here's the fossil that has the back end of the animal http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1686_2e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg

As for the coloration, you're right, that's speculation, based on what colors for organisms in general make sense for their environments. However, the presence of scales is not speculation. If you look closely at the backs of the fossils, they preserve the scales https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Tiktaalik_belgium_II.jpg
In fact, all the fossils I can find seem to preserve the scales to some extent.


Uh, hoax? Actually, an art gallery that acquired the fossil by which the GENUS was identified MISTOOK it for a plaster cast in the 1980s. In 2008, Dean Lomax of the University of Manchester recognized that it was a real fossil on display, and thus the genus was named.

You got the story backwards, it was a real fossil mistaken for plaster, not plaster mistaken for a real fossil. Also, there are multiple fossils for this GENUS class of organisms, like this one http://www.nhm.ac.uk/content/dam/nh...ogy/ichthyosaurus-acutirostris-two-column.jpg

And this one https://jamesmulraine.files.wordpre...osaurus_anningae_had_l-a-15_1424436408435.jpg

Not to mention this one http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/ichthyosaurus.jpg

Oh yeah that one more POSSIBLY related fossil really justifies the propaganda approach.

 

[pshun2404]

Oh yeah that one more POSSIBLY related fossil really justifies the propaganda approach.

The first two were good examples the last is enhanced and I do not deny theese creatures did noit exist they just do not justify calling IC the transitional between fish and tetrapods any more than Tik (from what? from fish to another variety of fish?)...lots of creatures share anatomical SIMILARITIES, so what...bats have wings...birds have wings...one did not become the other