Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

Infraspecific name - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Infraspecific name - Wikipedia

Still not evidence that you are right about transitional fossils and all of the world's scientists are wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again, all you are doing is saying that you are right because you say your are right.
ACTUALLY GIVE US EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT!!

I've given you evidence at least 20 times now. An entire living world.

Asian, African, Latino. Husky, mastiff, poodle. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, and on and on and on. Open your eyes and quit willingly blinding yourself to the truth and you'll actually be able to see.

If an entire living world of infraspecific taxa in every species isn't enough evidence......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still not evidence that you are right about transitional fossils and all of the world's scientists are wrong.

Then show me an infraspecific taxa in the fossil record. If they can't match observational data they are wrong.

Why not, they were wrong for close to 200 years when they published all those papers telling us dinosaurs were reptiles.

 

[pshun2404]

Look at the first two, the adjectives. You know, the DESCRIPTIVE words.

YUP! Looks like does not equal IS. Similarity does not equal relationship in terms of lineage. Go on...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And we don't really need to go into the fact all over again that they even got babies and adults wrong by classifying them as seperate species do we?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Look at the first two, the adjectives. You know, the DESCRIPTIVE words.

but technically you used it as a noun as in reptilian to avian not as an adjective.

But it's a moot point anyways so I won't bother teaching you English.

 

[pshun2404]

but technically you used it as a noun as in reptilian to avian not as an adjective.

But it's a moot point anyways so I won't bother teaching you English.

Reptilian (a reptile; a noun) and Avian (a bird; a noun) can also be used as an adjective so point well taken, I stand corrected. Eye ain't gut know cents sumtymz.

 

[USincognito]

Because it is not "transitional" by definition of that term...and Archae (which is still claimed to be by many) certainly cannot be...

I has both the characteristics of theropod dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs. How can that possibly be a transtional by definition?

 

[USincognito]

An ancient fully avian fossil predating Archae was found in Texas so they named it Proto-Avis so they could still claim Archae was "transitional". But simple logic tells us that if Archae was transitional between and reptiles and avians then avians would have had to come after, not before. The transitional cannot follow that which already exists. One cannot be born BEFORE their great grandparent.

That's the problem with simple logic, it doesn't work in a complex subject. Ancestral or not, species with basal characteristics don't immediately go extinct as soon as another population arises. It's the old "if Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans" non-problem.

Now some modern Evolutionary Biologists seeing this problem with excuses like Archae or Tiltaalik (tetrapods already existed long before Tilt)

Again, transtional does not mean ancestral.

...have slowly tried to change the meaning of this commonly understood word to include when something has anatomical characteristics SIMILAR to both creatures,

No. For decades the the definition has focused on characteristics more than chronology.

but homology is NOT science, it is a way humans intelligently classify.

Sorry, but no. Homology is science in anatomy. All the more so as we sequence genomes and see that the same genes make the different structures in different lineages.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is clear you understand nothing about dog breeding. Every new breed has more and more genetic errors.

Look it up and stop making false claims when clearly you haven't done your research. But that's nothing new for you.

I'm no dog breeder but you haven't shown in anyway that a dogs have "degraded genome" in comparison to wolves, simply saying so won't cut it, what's the difference?

You seem to be confused by the fact that selective breeding has led to less genetic diversity which can lead to problems.

The irony of this is that we could expect to see this reduced gene pool in all animals, including wolves, if a worldwide flood had occurred. Except, of course we don't, how do you explain that?

When did this worldwide flood you claim wiped out virtually all life on Earth happen anyway? If you accept the usual creationist timeline it would cause a serious problem for your wolf "super genome" idea.

 

[Jimmy D]

Don't get all uptight because you can't refute the evidence.

I know exactly how rare it is for an animal to become fossilized, which is why since we have unearthed "billions" of fossils, millions of which are found in each strata, there is no conclusion but that it was a worldwide catastrophic flood. Local floods would not have killed off and entombed the same animals worldwide in such vast numbers to preserve the billions of fossils we have. Accept the evidence, it's ok, really it is to accept the actual evidence for what it says.

No evidence? I have an entire living world of billions of infraspecific taxa in the species. What do you guys have? A fossil classification system that has not a single one and is divorced from reality. I got an entire world of observational evidence concerning infraspecific taxa. What do you guys have? Uhh well it's wrong.

So let's see, actual observational data versus claims it's wrong, oh my, which do we choose?

I'm starting to think that you've become so obsessed with this line of argument that you can't see the wood for the trees.

Earlier you showed a picture of various ceratopsia heads, please tell me what difference it makes to the theory of evolution if we arbitrarily call them separate species or variation within a species?

They still appear in the fossil record as we would expect to see them according to the well understood evolutionary timeline (and don't bother arguing that they don't unless you can provide specific examples.) What we call them makes no difference.

 

[Jimmy D]

I know exactly how rare it is for an animal to become fossilized, which is why since we have unearthed "billions" of fossils, millions of which are found in each strata,

Which strata? The same one? How are they sorted?

there is no conclusion but that it was a worldwide catastrophic flood.

It seems paleontologist and geologists have a different view, why do you have to ignore so much data that says otherwise? Are they all so incompetent that they can't understand what they've been studying for all these years

Local floods would not have killed off and entombed the same animals worldwide in such vast numbers to preserve the billions of fossils we have

No one thinks that every fossil is the result of a local flood, what gives you that idea?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've got an entire world of infraspecific taxa in the species. Everyone knows this, and knows the fossil record is divorced from reality because it contains none.

Where do you want to start? Asians, African or Latinos for example? Husky, Mastif or Poodle? We can list several infraspecific taxa for every species in existence today.

I am curious how you know there are no intraspecific taxa in the record? You simply state it with no proof.

And pointing out that someone in the past made a mistake is not proof that there are no intraspecific taxa.

Your point seems to be that we cannot define exactly where individual fossils relate to each other. If we dig up two very similar fossils, would those two have been the same species? We usually don't know. Species are defined by the ability to mate. But when all you have is the remains of a few bones in the ground of two individuals, then it is often impossible to tell if they are variations of the same species, if they are closely related species that in some situations could mate, or if they are totally incompatible species of the same genus. And somehow you take this lack of knowledge as proof there were no intermediates.

Again, what you have been ignoring is the immense fossil record of transitionals on the genus level. We have found multiple levels of horse fossils and identified these as the genera level. We have identified that a creature the size of a small dog with multiple toes known as hyracotherium advanced to the modern horse, donkey, and zebra over a long series of fossils covering many genera.

So why is it a big deal if, when finding two Hyracotherium fossils, we cannot identify one Hyracotherium as a definite intermediate to another? What we do find is Hyracotherium advancing to Mesohippus to Merychippus to Equus over 50 million years. That is clear from the fossil record.

How does your flood explain that all these different genera of horses are found in sequence over strata that dates back to 55 million years?

The fact your trying so hard to convince yourself it's not true, when all one needs do is open their eyes, just shows how important it really is.

OK, with open eyes, look at this chart. Now explain to me. How does a flood explain that hundreds of fossils matching this series were found?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, I was going to post a picture of one I took myself in the quoted post, but for some reason the picture kept turning at a 90 degree angle. So, here's the picture now anyway.
View attachment 196830

I took the picture in Polk County Georgia in a stream bed just above the waterline. You can see where erosion and deposition is already beginning to encase the tree. There are many trees in this area like this.

Also, cypress trees in lagoons are buried over time by deposition.

And you and I both know that tree will not fossilize but will rot. One requires rapid burial which you also know to be true. So why bother with things we both understand have no chance to become fossils at all because the proper conditions are not met?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But dinosaurs are not reptiles, I thought we covered that despite the millions of papers produced which were wrong for close to 200 years.

I see an extinct species.

How do you know that dinosaurs are not reptiles?
See Are Dinosaurs Reptiles? Dinosaur Evolution & Classification For Students .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which strata? The same one? How are they sorted?



It seems paleontologist and geologists have a different view, why do you have to ignore so much data that says otherwise? Are they all so incompetent that they can't understand what they've been studying for all these years

We have been over this before. They also said for close to 200 years and published millions of papers about dinosaurs being reptiles. They were wrong were they not?

No one thinks that every fossil is the result of a local flood, what gives you that idea?

which leaves a global flood.

 

[pshun2404]

I has both the characteristics of theropod dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs. How can that possibly be a transtional by definition?

Yup you does. I can see that (just kiddin)!

Avian dinosaur is an oxymoron since a dinosaur is only and always a reptile (usually a large one). It is the modern equivalent of "dragon" a large or winged reptile.

 

[Jimmy D]

which leaves a global flood.

Engage your brain and see if you can think of any other ways an organism could be rapidly buried without a global flood.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then show me an infraspecific taxa in the fossil record. If they can't match observational data they are wrong.

Huh? So if I find two Merychippus fossils, and cannot say for sure that these two were as closely related as a mastif is to a husky, then evolution is falsified? That is just plain silliness. The fact that we cannot know this from looking at fossils is proof of nothing. It just proves that there are some things the fossil record cannot tell us.

But there are other things the fossil record can tell us. It can tell us, for instance, that there was a long series of mammal-like reptile fossils through which early reptiles advanced into mammals. You ignore that, and complain that we cannot know the detailed species identification with certainty. Go by what we do know.

How do you explain that the mammal inter ear appears gradually in the fossil record over a hundred million years?

http://cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/maotherium4_h.jpg