Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

You keep going back to hypothetical finds as though they contradict evolution.

Your hypothetical finds are like "alternate facts".

Let's go with actual facts.

And the actual facts are that no fossil with the mammal ear and jaw bone design are found in layers over 300 million years old. Then after a long period in which fossils with jaw and ear bones progressively closer to mammals are found, we finally find placental mammal fossils about 80 million years old. All that is consistent with evolution.

Them's the facts.

Will you respond again by talking about alternative facts?

Them's not the facts. Mammals appear abruptly in the strata, just like every group of animals do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But are those 'layers' that you're laying down combinations of prehistoric marine life compressed together (limestone) or clay, quartz and calcite compressed together (shale)?
No they aren't. You experiment is just completely idiotic, and the only one acting with the "well I said so" attitude is you, since you have NEVER posted any evidence for ANYTHING you have claimed.

Go look at the bottom of any ocean bed. You know, water.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Go look at the bottom of any ocean bed. You know, water.

Is that your supposed evidence? Just... 'water'? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why are they mistakenly classified? Because you looked at a simplistic diagram showing reconstructions of their heads and said "they look similar"? I'm sorry but if you think your "observations" trump the opinion of paleontologists who have extensively studied these beasts you are deluded -by your logic these two critters would be variations of the same species:

Are we talking about the same people that claimed for 100 years dinosaurs were reptiles? I thought they extensively studied them, ooops. Are we talking about the same people that incorrectly classified babies and adults of the same species as seperate species?

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

I guess so much for their extensive studies.

I've said this to you before, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact, that the taxonomic classification of has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution. The inter-relatedness of animals, either alive or in the fossil record is complicated, subtle and exactly what we would expect to see - it makes such classification fairly arbitary. Whether we call the ceratopsia in your picture different species makes not the slightest bit of difference to the overall picture, your objections are spurious.

I've said it before you are deluding yourself. If I classify an Asian incorrectly as a separate species from the African, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. If I incorrectly classify the Husky as a separate species from the Mastiff, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook. I start believing transitionals exist and species are evolving into other species. Like Darwin did when he believed those finches were reproductively isolated. It's only too bad the DNA data showed they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and speciation never took place. I know you want to believe your delusion, but its time to face reality.

LOL, He might agree that the lack of dinosaur fossils make classification difficult but for you to claim that he would support you weird ideas is ridiculous....

Then show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record. Or are you going to ignore an entire world of infraspecific taxa within the species so you can continue to believe your own delusions?

"we don’t argue about the fact of evolution. We can go back and forth indefinitely about the minutiae of paleobiology and the patterns of evolutionary change, but vertebrate paleontologists agree that evolution is a fact.

Sure, they claimed it was a fact that dinosaurs were reptiles too. That didnt pan out too well. People claimed it as a fact the Milkjy-Way was the entire universe. That didnt pan out to well either. People claimed the earth was the center of the solar system and had the math to prove it. That didnt pan out very well. Peoiple make all sorts of claims of fact, but in the end they never stay around very long. But as long as you keep ignoring the data and believing in lies, it'll take years before you realize like those dinosaurs that were not reptiles, that your wrong.

So what do dinosaurs have to do with the fact of evolution? Horner outlined five different proofs of evolution: three proofs that Darwin cited, a “test” proof, and what Horner called the ultimate proof. The first on the list was simply descent with modification. Horner cited the many strange breeds of dogs and chickens as an analog for how organisms can become drastically modified over the course of history. Humans specifically selected for those changes in the domesticated animals, but as Darwin illustrated in On the Origin of Species and other works, the changes that dogs, chickens and other animals have undergone underscores the fact that the same thing is happening due to entirely natural causes every second and every day. To greater or lesser extents, lineages of organisms change over time, and the fossil record demonstrates this beautifully.

And those dogs are still dogs, will never become another species, unless you incorrectly classify them like you have done with those finches and 90% of the fossil record. We agree, what we see with dogs would if left to natural causes have taken hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and there would only be a few breeds. But then again, they would still be the same species. What you see with dogs is accelerated by man, and yet none are evolving into new species.

Seeing as the topic seems to have veered toward geology in the thread maybe you should also have a read of this....

"In a phrasing that sounded appropriately Victorian, Horner then moved on to evolutionary proof from the “geological succession of organic beings.” Simply put, we find fossils in layers, in successions of strata that together span hundreds of millions of years. Fossils are not all together in one big clump (as would be expected if the entire fossil record were attributable to the biblical flood as many young earth creationists claim). You’re not going to find a prehistoric horse in the 150-million-year-old Jurassic limestone quarries of Germany, and you’re certainly not going to find a dinosaur in the 505-million-year-old rock of the Burgess Shale. But Horner said that he encourages creationists who want to believe in alternate histories to go looking for the out-of-place fossils they think they’re going to find. “I encourage people who don’t believe in evolution to look for horses in Jurassic Solenhofen limestone,” Horner said, especially since those searches may be much more useful in turning up new specimens of the feathered dinosaur and archaic bird Archaeopteryx."

SVP Dispatch: Dinosaurs and the Proofs of Evolution | Science | Smithsonian

It seems Horner is saying the opposite of what you "believe".

World's Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death

They are everywhere

Don't try that false propaganda with me. And also in a flood that is worldwide, not all dinosaurs would be washed up together, so we would expect many to be found by themselves. But the mass burials outnumber them in the billions. Just as in any flood we see mass washups along with many that are scattered individually.

LOL. So all those ceratopsia in your diagram are separately "created" then?

Apparently you think dog breeds were separately created as well, even if they all came from an original pair. But you cant understand that probably, being brainwashed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is that your supposed evidence? Just... 'water'? Wow. Just wow.

Water is all I need for sedimentary layers, we are talking sedimentary layers are we not? And also show me an animal in the process of fossilization that was not buried quickly in the last say 5,000 years?

Hmmm, you don't have a single one despite multitudes of local floods. Imagine that. So really you got everything against you and nothing for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Water is all I need for sedimentary layers, we are talking sedimentary layers are we not? And also show me an animal in the process of fossilization that was not buried quickly in the last say 5,000 years?

Hmmm, you don't have a single one despite multitudes of local floods. Imagine that. So really you got everything against you and nothing for you.

The fact that you don't know how the ROCK IN SEDIMENTARY LAYERS are formed is incredibly telling, let alone your completely asinine question about finding a 'partially fossilized' creature. Hint: you won't, since it takes tens of thousands of years, even millions of years of the calcium in the bones to become rock, thus making it a fossil.

This whole endeavor is exactly like playing chess with a pigeon. With you being the pigeon.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Over the years I have read quite a bit of creation science literature where claims are made that both look at the same evidence but interpret it differently. I have yet to see the same evidence presented.

Over the years I have seen many different theories of evolution come and go from gap theory to sudden mutations to slow and gradual. Seems they are all looking at the sme evidence and interpreting it differently.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes. All organisms were or are potentially transitional.

T-Rex fossils are the same from the oldest to the youngest found. As are Triceratops. As are them all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Creation.com....

No, National Geographic

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The fact that you don't know how the ROCK IN SEDIMENTARY LAYERS are formed is incredibly telling, let alone your completely asinine question about finding a 'partially fossilized' creature. Hint: you won't, since it takes tens of thousands of years, even millions of years of the calcium in the bones to become rock, thus making it a fossil.

This whole endeavor is exactly like playing chess with a pigeon. With you being the pigeon.

I said in the PROCESS OF FOSSILIZATION. Millions of buffalo died on the plains, not a single skelton still exists. Because they were not buried rapidly and protected from decomposition. Unless animals are buried rapidly in a flood, they will NEVER become fossils. Even small floods that have occurred in the last 5,000 years have not one single animal skeleton begining the process of fossilization. At most you can find a peice of bone, the rest has decayed. Again, the evidence for long periods and local floods is against you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

millions of years is what they said about oil too.

PNNL: News - Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab

 

[doubtingmerle]

Them's not the facts. Mammals appear abruptly in the strata, just like every group of animals do.

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 .

 

[RickG]

QV please:

SOURCE

From your original question: "Didn't higher academia at one time teach that stalactites used to take quintillions of years to form?"

Thank you for the source but I do not consider "Creation.com" a higher academia source when it comes to the physical sciences. The sourced link described exactly what I described in my previous post, non-natural "concrete" stalactites (calthemites). The thing they did not reveal is that the chemistry and environment between natural and calthemite stalactites is quite different.

Here's what I previously said about stalactites: "Natural stalactite formation is dependent upon the calcium carbonate concentrate in solution and the drip rate and source. The average growth rate is around 0.13 mm a year. They are also excellent climate proxies similar to ice cores. By chance are you referring to the non-natural "concrete" stalactites (calthemites)? That's a different chemistry outside a cave environment."

Here's a link describing the the chemistry fast forming calthemites: Calthemite - Wikipedia

 

[RickG]

Over the years I have seen many different theories of evolution come and go from gap theory to sudden mutations to slow and gradual. Seems they are all looking at the sme evidence and interpreting it differently.

I am unaware of any mainstream science that has entertained gap theory or sudden mutations. Using the same evidence means using "ALL" of the evidence, not just the part one wishes to use while ignoring everything that does not support their position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are we talking about the same people that claimed for 100 years dinosaurs were reptiles? I thought they extensively studied them, ooops. Are we talking about the same people that incorrectly classified babies and adults of the same species as seperate species?

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

I guess so much for their extensive studies.

-_- some species change body structure quite a bit as they get older. Given that fossils are exceedingly rare and usually quite incomplete (and become progressively more rare and incomplete the older the fossil), it is a rather difficult situation to determine the age of the individual when they died. When all you have is a couple leg bones and some teeth, it's no wonder people make that sort of mistake.

Most fossils aren't like this https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/oleary2HR.jpg

You are lucky to get this http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/figs/jan06f1.jpg

and tons of species are only known by part of a jaw or hip that doesn't match up with any fossils we've already found. When all you have is from a baby dinosaur, how are you supposed to even tell? We later figure out the error when we find more complete fossils (or, at least, fossils with some of the bones missing from those we already have).

I've said it before you are deluding yourself. If I classify an Asian incorrectly as a separate species from the African, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. If I incorrectly classify the Husky as a separate species from the Mastiff, I come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook. I start believing transitionals exist and species are evolving into other species.

But would a chihuahua and a Great Dane be different species by now? Good luck getting that cross without artificial insemination. By the way, the only reason dogs are all the same species despite such a wide range of physical traits is because we artificially controlled their breeding to allow for an unusually high amount of diversity within a short amount of time. In case you haven't noticed, entirely natural multicellular species don't have nearly that much variation within their populations, because genetic drift will prevent it.

Like Darwin did when he believed those finches were reproductively isolated. It's only too bad the DNA data showed they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and speciation never took place.

-_- what are you even talking about? Only some of those finch species interbreed. In fact, the situation of Species A and Species B breed, and Species B and Species C breed, but Species A and Species C don't breed is pretty common in birds. Life doesn't like to fit perfectly into the little boxes we make for it. Taxonomy is a battlefield, and interbreeding alone doesn't make two populations the same species. That's a high school understanding of taxonomy.

Then show me the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record. Or are you going to ignore an entire world of infraspecific taxa within the species so you can continue to believe your own delusions?

Are you kidding me? All we have with fossils are incomplete skeletons with some impressions of scales or feathers if we are lucky. Do you think that infraspecific taxa can be labeled when that's all we get?

These images depict two females from different Purple Finch subspecies
http://www.sibleyguides.com/wp-content/uploads/Carpodacus_purpureus_fem_comp_web.jpg
Do you honestly think that their skeletons would be different enough to tell apart the subspecies without living birds to compare to? Fossil feathers don't preserve color, sir.

To be blunt, a given species isn't going to necessarily diverge into different subspecies as it transitions to a different species, so I don't even know why you brought this up.

Sure, they claimed it was a fact that dinosaurs were reptiles too. That didnt pan out too well. People claimed it as a fact the Milkjy-Way was the entire universe. That didnt pan out to well either. People claimed the earth was the center of the solar system and had the math to prove it. That didnt pan out very well. Peoiple make all sorts of claims of fact, but in the end they never stay around very long. But as long as you keep ignoring the data and believing in lies, it'll take years before you realize like those dinosaurs that were not reptiles, that your wrong.

On the subject of whether or not dinosaurs should be classed as reptiles or not, I find a lot of conflicting points on the matter. Remember how I said taxonomy is a battlefield? It gets especially tedious with extinct species we only know about via fossils. People still argue about whether or not Archaeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur, since it has intermediate traits. And since a lot of taxonomy debates rely upon genetics to end the discussion, and we don't have DNA from fossils that are millions of years old, that debate will probably go on forever.

In any case, we don't need the fossil record for species to species transitions, because we can observe that in our lifetime. The fossil record is for genus and higher.

And those dogs are still dogs, will never become another species, unless you incorrectly classify them like you have done with those finches and 90% of the fossil record. We agree, what we see with dogs would if left to natural causes have taken hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and there would only be a few breeds. But then again, they would still be the same species. What you see with dogs is accelerated by man, and yet none are evolving into new species.

-_- dogs already transitioned into a new species; did you forget that they are descended from wolves?

Seeing as the topic seems to have veered toward geology in the thread maybe you should also have a read of this....



World's Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death

They are everywhere

Don't try that false propaganda with me. And also in a flood that is worldwide, not all dinosaurs would be washed up together, so we would expect many to be found by themselves. But the mass burials outnumber them in the billions. Just as in any flood we see mass washups along with many that are scattered individually.

-_- mass burials? Only if they are in the same stratum. Fossils are found more frequently in certain areas because those areas are better suited to fossil formation. If it was a matter of mass burials in one flood, we should see tons of different fossils of different species piled on top of each other with no regard for strata. That's not what we observe.

Apparently you think dog breeds were separately created as well, even if they all came from an original pair. But you cant understand that probably, being brainwashed.

-_- we created most dog breeds within the past 200 years. It was a well documented hobby of the wealthy to breed for different traits in dogs and slap a label on them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said in the PROCESS OF FOSSILIZATION. Millions of buffalo died on the plains, not a single skelton still exists. Because they were not buried rapidly and protected from decomposition. Unless animals are buried rapidly in a flood, they will NEVER become fossils. Even small floods that have occurred in the last 5,000 years have not one single animal skeleton begining the process of fossilization. At most you can find a peice of bone, the rest has decayed. Again, the evidence for long periods and local floods is against you.

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.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution predicts that transitional fossils will be found, yes.

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.

But creationism would not predict that we would find this long list of intermediates in a time range expected by evolution.

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

 

[Skreeper]

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

There is nothing like a transitional fossil in human engineering since products of human engineering do not fit in to a nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

There is nothing like a transitional fossil in human engineering since products of human engineering do not fit in to a nested hierarchy.

why not? a fighter jet is a transitional between a car and a space shuttle.

 

[Skreeper]

why not? a fighter jet is a transitional between a car and a space shuttle.

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.