Are there transitional fossils?

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

ok. so you are saying that this kind of motor doesnt need a designer because it made from organic components and can replicate itself? so if we will find a watch or a robot or a car that have all those traits, your conclusion will be the same- they can evolve naturally.
If I see a car having a baby car, the last thing I will do is engage in a debate of whether they can evolve. If I see my car delivering a baby car tonight, I will go a little easier on the alcohol tomorrow night.

Cars do not get pregnant.
but do you agree that the burden of proof is your side in this case?
You want me to prove what about baby cars exactly?

Bartender, you better cut me off here. I seem to be hearing people saying crazy stuff.

you see again your assumption? the evidence we have show us that those proteins exist in many species of bacteria and not just one. so we can just mix them.
Huh? I answered this in the paragraph you quoted. You simply ignored what I posted. Why are you doing this?
very high because we are talking about designer that can target and moving those parts by design.
Ah, so all your arguments about it being impossible for a bacteria to get several new proteins at once is bogus? Now suddenly you argue that it is no big deal for it to suddenly get thousands.

!!!!!!!

Unbelievable. If your God is unable to create several proteins at once, how can he do thousands?

And besides, they didn't all need to happen at once.
and again: zero evidence to your "motor evolved naturally hypothesis"
Dogs evolved from wolves. Finches evolved from a common ancestor. Horses evolved from Eohippus. Evolution happens.

But never once has it been shown that a zebra went kaboom and popped up of nowhere. Not once.

Nope. I was looking for a peer reviewed article that supported your claim, that a bacteria could not evolve a flagellum. I see you have none. I kinda expected that.

its only a variation. again: according to this any change is evolution.
How can it only be a "variation" to go from Eohippus to zebra and horse? It involves several new genera.

Other creationists on this thread argue that Eohippus is a hyrax. So how can you go from something others call a hyrax to a zebra and call it only a small variation?


like i know that a car cant evolve into an airplane. with or without a self repliciation trait.
How does that prove a fish-like creature could not evolve into an amphibian? A fish is not the same thing as a car. Fish can do some things cars cannot.

so why we should believe that a fish can evolve into human?
Answered before.

Want me to list all 29 of the reasons?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,215
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are pretty popular representations of evolutionary transitions.

Tiktaalik has wrist bones and bones like that of an alligator, for lifting of its body. Its eyes are on top of its head, also like an alligator. Yet it has scales like a fish, and fins.

Archaeopteryx has longer finger digits and a long tail. Teeth and its reversed first toe, like a theropod dinosaur. Yet it also had feathers and a wishbone like a bird, and by all accounts just looked like a theropod bird.

People seem to commonly site the tetrapod tracks found in Norway or wherever they were. However, the age difference between those tetrapod tracks and that of Tiktaalik is no more than 10 or so million years (which sounds like a lot, but considering the fossil record which spans over 600 million (general complex fossils, it isn't as long as it may seem). This isnt an issue for the theory, rather it only reaffirms the existence of the fossil succession in demonstrating the fact that early tetrapods roamed the earth in the middle Devonian or so. If a T rex were found back then (Devonian times), it would be an issue because youre talking about 200 million years in difference. But to say that tetrapods were around only 10 my earlier, is more of an establishment or reaffirmation of the theory.

Also, people should understand that a transitional fossil, doesn't necessarily need to be the precise animal that gave birth to our parents. On the contrary, its a given that 99% of living things went extinct in earth history, and what we view in the fossil record is likely just a closely related organism that is used to understand the succession of life as it unfolded. So, really tiktaalik could be viewed more as the close cousin of our ancestor, that went extinct. It may have gone extinct shortly after our ancestor transitioned. It may have gone extinct shortly before, etc.

Regardless of all this though, the fossils both do a good job at depicting the transition of life through time, hence why they are considered transitional fossils.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
250px-HyracotheriumVasacciensisLikeHorse.JPG


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!
Odd that you should say that, since xianghula says this is just a horse variation, no different than growing a pimple. So what is Eohippus? A horse virtually identical to modern horses or something that could not ever evolve into a horse?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Odd that you should say that, since xianghula says this is just a horse variation, no different than growing a pimple. So what is Eohippus? A horse virtually identical to modern horses or something that could not ever evolve into a horse?
Looks like a drawing to me.

Do they have a complete skeleton of this thing, or just a tooth?
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
If I see a car having a baby car, the last thing I will do is engage in a debate of whether they can evolve. If I see my car delivering a baby car tonight, I will go a little easier on the alcohol tomorrow night.​

so if you will see a car that can produce other cars your conclusion will be that such a car can evolve by a natural process?



Ah, so all your arguments about it being impossible for a bacteria to get several new proteins at once is bogus?

bogus only under the natural evolution model. of course that under the d esign model it's make sense.

Dogs evolved from wolves. Finches evolved from a common ancestor. Horses evolved from Eohippus. Evolution happens.

again: you are welcome to call it evolution. but its only a variation. evolution is also about changes of creatures into others creatures (again: like fish evolving into a tetrapod).

Nope. I was looking for a peer reviewed article that supported your claim, that a bacteria could not evolve a flagellum. I see you have none. I kinda expected that.

here are two of them:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141#[{"num":223,"gen":0},{"name":"XYZ"},70,427,0]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141#[{"num":225,"gen":0},{"name":"XYZ"},70,486,0]


How can it only be a "variation" to go from Eohippus to zebra and horse? It involves several new genera. Other creationists on this thread argue that Eohippus is a hyrax. So how can you go from something others call a hyrax to a zebra and call it only a small variation?

again: its not a clear example so we can know for sure. but lets say that they are indeed different creatures. even so those fossils cant prove any evolution because as you can remember we can also arrange cars in some order. but we are both agree that it doesnt prove any evolution.​



How does that prove a fish-like creature could not evolve into an amphibian? A fish is not the same thing as a car. Fish can do some things cars cannot.

they are both shared complex systems that need about several parts to be functional. so if we cant go from a car into an airplane then why do you think that we can move from a fish into a tetrapod?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Eohippus? They have many fossils. Eohippus
Tell me, chief:

How did this ...
eohippus2.jpg
become this
eohippus.jpg
?

Looks like the artist filled in some stuff: ear flaps, longer tail, missing hind claws, spotted coat.

As long as the public buys it, eh? ;)
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,215
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Odd that you should say that, since xianghula says this is just a horse variation, no different than growing a pimple. So what is Eohippus? A horse virtually identical to modern horses or something that could not ever evolve into a horse?

In the horse succession, you have fusion of the toes. Ancient horses bones were not fused as they are today. Otherwise, to a person who isn't familiar with the specifics of a horse skeleton, they would likely have looked similar to what they do today. And fusion of bones is a lot more than a pimple.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Oh yeah that one more POSSIBLY related fossil really justifies the propaganda approach.
-_- they all have the head preserved, and accurate identification of fossils can be performed with a partial jawbone. Furthermore, propaganda? Tiktaalik was first discovered in 2004, and despite the fact that I generally have an interest in paleontology, I never heard about it until I joined this site.

If you are referring to the recreation of what it may have looked like while alive, that isn't mere speculation. For example, bones will be shaped partly through their interactions with muscles. Where muscles attach and exert the most force on a bone, there will be ridges and processes present. Thus accurately determining the musculature. The shapes of the bones themselves represent the types of joints they formed and range of motion. Now, fleshy structures that lacked bones are often a mystery so you will see some degree of variation in recreations. That, and color is practically impossible to determine, so that will vary the most in recreations. But, you'll notice, despite a multitude of different people assigned to make the recreations, they remain quite similar, and are practically identical when it comes to bony structures. Heck, here are a bunch of different ones:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ef/cb/e5/efcbe50ed7c301b42bf43b200e7d2a47.jpg

https://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/17110/ImageGallery/pic-42337-tiktaalik.jpg

http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1686_1e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MzKSc4SZx...I/G6R8NMBLHbg/s1600/Tiktaalik+roseae+-+03.jpg

Like I said, biggest difference you are going to see in professional recreations is going to be color. The placement and size of structures like the eyes is easy to determine thanks to the fact that bones that form the orbit of the eye have a specific shape and size relative to the eyes.


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?)...
"Enhanced" how? I can see the scales in every image of fossils for this species, this one just was at a good angle and distance to make that trait glaringly obvious. Here's another one that shows the scales fairly well https://cangeo-media-library.s3.ama...es/900/tiktaalik_rdb_005_lg.jpg?itok=Cb0BVafp are you going to claim it is "enhanced" too or that you can't see the scales?

Additionally, Tiktaalik has traits of tetrapods and fish, as well as traits intermediate between the two. That's all it needs to qualify as a transitional fossil; no one is claiming that it is a direct ancestor to any modern organisms, or even any fossil organisms. Transitional species are "proof of concept", demonstrations that organisms with intermediate traits between two groups of organisms existed (in this case, between fish and tetrapods).

lots of creatures share anatomical SIMILARITIES, so what...bats have wings...birds have wings...one did not become the other
For one thing, bird and bat wings are anatomically DISTINCT from each other, and it is really easy to see that in their bone structure http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/bat_bird.gif

Secondly, organisms that are more anatomically similar to each other tend to also be more genetically similar to each other (going beyond outward appearance, which is often shared in cases of convergent evolution).

Thirdly, a transitional fossil species is defined as one which shares traits of two groups, forming a bridge between them. Whether you like it or not, Tiktaalik fits that definition. I don't even understand why it bothers you, since no one is claiming that Tiktaalik is an ancestor to any modern species.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Definitely! If they were trying to present a reasonable example they would used the mudskipper.
-_- why? Mudskippers have far fewer tetrapod traits than lungfish do. Furthermore, the split between fish and tetrapods occurred many millions of years ago. It's unlikely any modern organism is going to be an accurate representation of that split, as even when capabilities evolve multiple times independently, they are never physiologically the same in each instance. For example, consider flight, which evolved independently 4 times (insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats). The wings of insects are structurally distinct from those of pterosaurs, birds, and bats. In fact, anatomically, they are all quite different from each other.

Additionally, Tiktaalik has more tetrapod traits than lungfish do. The best transitional species are those that are fairly intermediate between the groups in question (which is why Lucy is often brought up in concerns of human evolution, even though there are more than a dozen other transitional species one could choose to bring up).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Odd that you should say that, since xianghula says this is just a horse variation, no different than growing a pimple. So what is Eohippus? A horse virtually identical to modern horses or something that could not ever evolve into a horse?

Most scientists today do believe it is a long lost relative or possibly common ancestor to horses and hippos and so on...but IMO their reasoning is not logical...a small dog like creature found in a land known to have neither horse nor hippo that has long digits not even close to hooves that has some similarities with modern creatures which are neither horse nor hippo and the leg joints are totally backwards...and so on...???

Now I have no problem with a number of different perspectives (not dogmatic regarding ancient unknowns) like the one Xiang shared, or the one you hold to, but it is not an established fact that it is either, it is simply different interpretations of the same data...
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Much more "amphibius" at least scientists claim this...and to be honest it even looks more amphibius but it still only a variety of fish (and alive and well as we speak)
-_- Tiktaalik is also a fish. Taxonomy is a warzone, especially around transitional species, since trying to label an organism with traits of two different taxonomic groups makes for a difficult decision. I mean, it's like trying to classify "orange" as either "yellow" or "red", it's both and neither at the same time. It's no wonder Tiktaalik roseae sits in a genus all by itself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
-_- why? Mudskippers have far fewer tetrapod traits than lungfish do. Furthermore, the split between fish and tetrapods occurred many millions of years ago. It's unlikely any modern organism is going to be an accurate representation of that split, as even when capabilities evolve multiple times independently, they are never physiologically the same in each instance. For example, consider flight, which evolved independently 4 times (insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats). The wings of insects are structurally distinct from those of pterosaurs, birds, and bats. In fact, anatomically, they are all quite different from each other.

Additionally, Tiktaalik has more tetrapod traits than lungfish do. The best transitional species are those that are fairly intermediate between the groups in question (which is why Lucy is often brought up in concerns of human evolution, even though there are more than a dozen other transitional species one could choose to bring up).

"The best transitional species are those that are fairly intermediate between the groups in question "

Yes the best called "transitionals" are intermediate between the two groups in question, not just based on similarity of appearance of some features, or that they have some features in common with others, and that alone excludes the natural de-selected unsuccessful knuckewalker Lucy as well as the total fish Tik.

Nothing is "amphibius" about Tik outside of the artistic reconstructions...

And I never said or implied that Tik did not have scales, of course it did...the picture you offered that I called enhanced (the 3rd one) is a photoshoped version of the fossil. Didn't you know that? Sorry! The other two...one the real flattened broken fragmented one (which is given skin/scales, a tail, imaginary proportions, a more robust chest, etc), and the second (which might not even be the same creature but a variety of it) are bonifide real photos of the actual fossils.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Tell me, chief:

How did this ...
eohippus2.jpg
become this
eohippus.jpg
?

Looks like the artist filled in some stuff: ear flaps, longer tail, missing hind claws, spotted coat.

As long as the public buys it, eh? ;)
You can get a good idea of the probable morphology from a skeleton by examining the muscle attachment points on the bones. These give an indication of the size of the musculature and the strength and direction of the stresses the produced; also from this information, posture and patterns of movement, such as gait, can be deduced. Comparison of skeletal features with similar ones in contemporary creatures can help in reconstruction.

Techniques of this kind have developed significantly in recent years - for example, it is now possible to reconstruct a head with recognisable facial features from a skull alone. It is also one reason many dinosaur reconstructions have been revised.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
"The best transitional species are those that are fairly intermediate between the groups in question "

Yes the best called "transitionals" are intermediate between the two groups in question, not just based on similarity of appearance of some features and that alone excludes the natural deselected unsuccessful knuckewalker Lucy as well as the total fish Tik.
Total fish with lungs and the ability to walk on land, no one claimed Tiktaalik wasn't a fish. I'm not sure why you thought anyone would think that.

9796f871f6e83b99ee354b260bf9f7ff.jpg
This is a recreation of an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton (the same species as the infamous Lucy fossil). Of the many transitional species relevant to our evolution specifically, this is the species we have the MOST fossils for, with over 1000 individual fossils. This one is Lucy https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Lucy_blackbg.jpg
And here are a few other ones:
https://lawnchairanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ksd-vp-1.jpg
https://australianmuseum.net.au/uploads/images/9363/dsc_0089_big.jpg
https://news.uchicago.edu/sites/def...age/20170519/selam-skeleton.jpg?itok=Aumc1tWq

Oh yes, check out all these fossil hominids
http://www.lifebeyondtourism.org/img/puntidiinteresse/site_0915_0002.jpg

Addressing your comment that you think Lucy was a "knuckle dragger", the answer is definitively no. Not only was her pelvis an incorrect shape for that locomotion, but knuckle dragging apes have notably thick bones in the hands to support the body weight they put on their hands. The fingers of Lucy's species are too thin. A pelvis comparison http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/pelvis_and_feet.gif

Lucy, of course, was not human either. The rib cage shape is far more like a chimp than a human, the arms are too long, and the skull is fairly intermediate between human and chimp.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,215
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
a small dog like creature found in a land known to have neither horse nor hippo.


Its not a dog like creature, it is a small horse like creature, and it has been found right where other historic horse like creatures have been found
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Most scientists today do believe it is a long lost relative or possibly common ancestor to horses and hippos and so on...but IMO their reasoning is not logical...a small dog like creature found in a land known to have neither horse nor hippo that has long digits not even close to hooves that has some similarities with modern creatures which are neither horse nor hippo and the leg joints are totally backwards...and so on...???

Do you think it's fossil was examined in isolation and proclaimed to be an ancestor of the horse, really? You're an intelligent guy and you obviously know better than that so I have to wonder why you post such things.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes


In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that appear to represent a gradual change from this....

1200px-Mesohippus_barbouri_Harvard.jpg



to this....

640
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0