Are there transitional fossils?

[pshun2404]

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.

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.

Thank you so much for showing Lucy's actual fossil's. Now any rational person should be able to see the utter contrivance in the reconstruction (they even made the added to spinal column straighter to look a bit more human) and I did not say knuckle "dragger" as even modern apes are not "draggers" I said knuckle WALKER, and it is the real researchers (not the politicallt oriented crowd) who pointed that out on more than a few occasions, not I.

As far as the collection of hominid fossils you displayed, besides "hominid" being a hypothesis based very general intelligently designed classification, are you really going to tell me you cannot see the difference? The skull in the top right is so obviously an ape and the one right next to it is so definitely an early type of human I cannot believe you cannot see it? Even some of the lower jaw pieces are clearly distinguishable but to draw the distinction would question the golden calf (nature forbid)

 

[pshun2404]

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

Really? There were horse like creatures and hippo like creatures in Wyoming? Okay if you think so!

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

Well, it isnt exactly a total fish. It is half fish, half tetrapod. It is simultaneously, a whole animal.

 

[pshun2404]

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....

to this....

First off Jim, the legs are backwards for a horse (that is the most obvious red flag)...and why did the Spanish and British have to introduce them into this country if this is where they evolved? Think about it?

 

[Job 33:6]

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



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.

Tiktaalik had scales, gills and fins. If you look at the actual fossil, these features are present. But it simultaneously has wrist bones and lungs.

It is truly an intermediate

 

[Job 33:6]

Really? There were horse like creatures and hippo like creatures in Wyoming? Okay if you think so!

Yup, the horse lineage is present right here in the states.

 

[pshun2404]

For Sarah...

Richmond and Strait’s research, found in, “Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor”, Nature 404, 382-385 (23 March 2000), tell us that only knuckle-walking apes have a mechanism that locks the wrist into place in order to stabilize this joint. In their report, they noted: “Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER-20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking”

In an interview with The San Diego Union Tribune (March 29, 2000) they reported that the cast of the bones of “Lucy,” show her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s and that this suggests that her ancestors as well as Lucy herself walked on their knuckles.

 

[Job 33:6]

First off Jim, the legs are backwards for a horse (that is the most obvious red flag)...and why did the Spanish and British have to introduce them into this country if this is where they evolved? Think about it?

Much like mankind and many other animals of the world, horses migrate. They spread from north america and populated multiple continents. Horses of north america died with the megafauna extinction, along with a large number of other large mammals toward the end of the ice age. Often this extinction is attributed to climate change and human interaction (hunting in particular). Other animals of this extinction include mammoths, saber tooths, giant beavers and sloths, mastodons etc.

The horses that had migrated elsewhere in the world were essentially reintroduced to north america in recent times.

 

[pshun2404]

Yup, the horse lineage is present right here in the states.

You have been reading a bit too much science fiction my friend.

 

[pshun2404]

Much like mankind and many other animals of the world, horses migrate. They spread from north america and populated multiple continents. Horses of north america died with the megafauna extinction, along with a large number of other large mammals toward the end of the ice age. Often this extinction is attributed to climate change and human interaction (hunting in particular). Other animals of this extinction include mammoths, saber tooths, giant beavers and sloths, mastodons etc.

The horses that had migrated elsewhere in the world were essentially reintroduced to north america in recent times.

Wow! That's some story is that the one they tell?

 

[Job 33:6]

You have been reading a bit too much science fiction my friend.

Is that your best response? I do more than read, i find many fossils myself, including devonian tetrapods which, perhaps you think do not exist.

I wonder how young earth creationists distinguish between extinctions like that of the pleistocene megafauna and the dinosaurs. They are present in completely different stratigraphic layers. They are completely independent and unique collections of extinct animals. How does a young earther explain their independent qualities? What about the other extinctions? Or do you think all of these were caused all at once by one single flood, and somehow the receding waters which magically receded into the earth, somehow sorted them all?

Extinction event - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

I wonder how young earth creationists explain glacial striations. Did the global flood also involve mile high glaciation? Or perhaps they believe there was no ice age. Or perhaps they believe water carved linear grooves in stone.

Or perhaps they do believe ice covered large swaths of north america, but somehow volcanic activity was also present in the same place? And yet somehow fossils were sorted above and below these features?

I suppose I'll keep wondering, as no explanation can be given.

 

[pshun2404]

More for Sarah...Though posted in another thread I believe its relevance merits re-posting it here in OUR Lucy discussion. Please note this is not ME...

Stern and Susman in The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983 when having examined Australopithicus fossils remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis (Lucy) possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (pg. 280). They went on to comment that “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.

They said “the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities” assigned to hands and feet. These creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Now please note that in reading through the following descriptions, bear in mind that the zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, proudly displays a life-size reconstruction of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet. (What an evil deception…lying in the name of truth….sounds Geobbels to me]

A bit further on they tell us “The overall morphology of metacarpals II-V [bones that comprise the hand—BH/BT] is similar to that of chimpanzees and, therefore, might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior (pg. 283)”.

Moving on they say, “The markedly curved proximal phalanges [bones of the fingers—BH/BT] indicate adaptation for suspensory and climbing activities which require powerful grasping abilities.... The trapezium [bone at the base of the first digit—BH/BT] and first metacarpal are very chimpanzee-like in relative size and shape.... Enlarged metacarpal heads and the mildly curved, parallel-sided shafts are two such features of the Hadar metacarpals not seen in human fingers. The distal phalanges, too, retain ape-like features in A. afarensis.... (pg. 284).”

In their concluding remarks, Stern and Susman tell us, “We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained.. When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes. (pg. 313 on)”

 

[pshun2404]

Is that your best response? I do more than read, i find many fossils myself, including devonian tetrapods which, perhaps you think do not exist.

I wonder how young earth creationists distinguish between extinctions like that of the pleistocene megafauna and the dinosaurs. They are present in completely different stratigraphic layers. They are completely independent and unique collections of extinct animals. How does a young earther explain their independent qualities? What about the other extinctions? Or do you think all of these were caused all at once by one single flood, and somehow the receding waters which magically receded into the earth, somehow sorted them all?

Extinction event - Wikipedia

a) Why would I think they do not exist?
b) I am not a YEC.
c) I definitely not only believe in extinction events but use them also to account for some facts, but your claim related to horses is horse pucky...it is a story told not a fact confirmed (unless you accept Eohippus as an early horse...which is fine with me however I do not)...it is so very anatomically incorrect I would never assume such a thing...I realize they stuck a lot of unexplainables in equidae...that's what they do to design the stories.

I am curious why you associated all these assumptive conclusions about my person as insults to my character? Do you have a tendency to go a bit ad hominem when someone disagrees? Just curious.

 

[Jimmy D]

First off Jim, the legs are backwards for a horse (that is the most obvious red flag)...and why did the Spanish and British have to introduce them into this country if this is where they evolved? Think about it?

I can only asume you're just joking now but I'll humour you, which legs are backwards?

And why did you ignore the rest of the post which discusses the thousands of fossils showing the transitions between the species mentioned?

 

[Jimmy D]

More for Sarah...Though posted in another thread I believe its relevance merits re-posting it here in OUR Lucy discussion. Please note this is not ME...

Stern and Susman in The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983 when having examined Australopithicus fossils remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis (Lucy) possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (pg. 280). They went on to comment that “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.

They said “the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities” assigned to hands and feet. These creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Now please note that in reading through the following descriptions, bear in mind that the zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, proudly displays a life-size reconstruction of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet. (What an evil deception…lying in the name of truth….sounds Geobbels to me]

A bit further on they tell us “The overall morphology of metacarpals II-V [bones that comprise the hand—BH/BT] is similar to that of chimpanzees and, therefore, might be interpreted as evidence of developed grasping capabilities to be used in suspensory behavior (pg. 283)”.

Moving on they say, “The markedly curved proximal phalanges [bones of the fingers—BH/BT] indicate adaptation for suspensory and climbing activities which require powerful grasping abilities.... The trapezium [bone at the base of the first digit—BH/BT] and first metacarpal are very chimpanzee-like in relative size and shape.... Enlarged metacarpal heads and the mildly curved, parallel-sided shafts are two such features of the Hadar metacarpals not seen in human fingers. The distal phalanges, too, retain ape-like features in A. afarensis.... (pg. 284).”

In their concluding remarks, Stern and Susman tell us, “We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained.. When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes. (pg. 313 on)”

Funny that, from your post it almost sounds like it displays a mixture of hominid and more ape-like features..... almost as if it represents a transition between the two.

 

[Jimmy D]

Much like mankind and many other animals of the world, horses migrate. They spread from north america and populated multiple continents. Horses of north america died with the megafauna extinction, along with a large number of other large mammals toward the end of the ice age. Often this extinction is attributed to climate change and human interaction (hunting in particular). Other animals of this extinction include mammoths, saber tooths, giant beavers and sloths, mastodons etc.

The horses that had migrated elsewhere in the world were essentially reintroduced to north america in recent times.

Wow! That's some story is that the one they tell?

I am curious why you associated all these assumptive conclusions about my person as insults to my character? Do you have a tendency to go a bit ad hominem when someone disagrees? Just curious

It's probably something to do with your sarcastic responses when people take the time to answer your questions. If you want to know "what story they tell" I suggest you educate yourself on the topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

a) Why would I think they do not exist?
b) I am not a YEC.

If you arent a YEC, then what are you? Why would you think the earth is old if you, so far as I can tell, reject modern geology?

If you accept extinction events, that means you would also accept that there is an order to fossils found in the earth. It means you accept radioactive dating and the fossil succession.

Or do you accept the fossil succession, but simply reject that these animals were related to one another?

But if you accepted radioactive dating and the fossil succession, but rejected relatedness of the animals in the earth, then how would you explain something like this...
https://www.sanparks.org/images//parks/kruger/elephants/elephant-evolution.jpg

Do you think these elephants are simply unrelated? Or that the proto elephants like paleomastodon or gomphotherium are simply unrelated? Or do you think they are all elephants but just look different? Yet theyre morphologically distinct, which is all evolution has ever claimed there to be (morphologically distinct, but related animals across strata in a sequence).

 

[AV1611VET]

If you arent a YEC, then what are you? Why would you think the earth is old if you, so far as I can tell, reject modern geology?

Can't someone reject modern geology and not be a YEC?

If I reject modern astronomy, am I a geocentrist?

 

[Job 33:6]

Can't someone reject modern geology and not be a YEC?

If I reject modern astronomy, am I a geocentrist?

mmm, i dont think so. How would you know the world is old if you rejected something like, radioactive dating?