Explanation of missing transition fossils

[ChordatesLegacy]

An excellent example of evolution without transition fossils has arisen in Britain over the past 150 years. In the mid 19th century Grey Squirrells escaped into the wide, and within hundred years had replaced the native Red Squirrels. Here is a Map of their present day distribution, as you can see there are almost no Red Squirrels left in the southern half of Britain, the Isle of Wight being a notable exception.

If a palaeontologist in the distant future found squirrel fossils covering this time period, he or she would notice an almost instantaneous change from Red Squirrels to Grey Squirrels as they are different anatomically, most noticeable the Grey Squirrels are much larger. They would also comment on the lack of transition fossils, which indeed is the case.

The reason for a lack of transition fossils is because Grey Squirrels were introduced by humans. This can and probably does happen often in the natural world; land bridges, floating debris etc could all act as vectors for the migration of species across impassable barriers.

So my question is to creationist.

Why do you always insist on transition fossils, when quite clearly they very often are not preserved, simply because they are not there?

 

[gamespotter10]

An excellent example of evolution without transition fossils has arisen in Britain over the past 150 years. In the mid 19th century Grey Squirrells escaped into the wide, and within hundred years had replaced the native Red Squirrels. Here is a Map of their present day distribution, as you can see there are almost no Red Squirrels left in the southern half of Britain, the Isle of Wight being a notable exception.

If a palaeontologist in the distant future found squirrel fossils covering this time period, he or she would notice an almost instantaneous change from Red Squirrels to Grey Squirrels as they are different anatomically, most noticeable the Grey Squirrels are much larger. They would also comment on the lack of transition fossils, which indeed is the case.

The reason for a lack of transition fossils is because Grey Squirrels were introduced by humans. This can and probably does happen often in the natural world; land bridges, floating debris etc could all act as vectors for the migration of species across impassable barriers.

So my question is to creationist.

Why do you always insist on transition fossils, when quite clearly they very often are not preserved, simply because they are not there?

well, actually, we do have transitional fossils. we have transitional fossils from whatever humans and chimps evolved from, to humans and chimps. for instance, homo erectus is a transitional fossil. so, we dont have transitional fossils for everything because it takes very precise, very improbable circumstances for an animal's bones to become fossillized

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Even if we dug up every fossil that could be found, our fossil record would still be vastly incomplete. Fossilization is a rare process. This makes it all the more fascinating that we do find these transitional serie that while incomplete give us a pretty good idea of what happened. fish>amphibian, Reptile>mammal, Reptile>bird, horse, whale, human, and several others are phenomenally preserved and represented in the fossil record. If creationists had a serious standard for what a transitional fossil should be, they would have accepted evolution by now.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

well, actually, we do have transitional fossils. we have transitional fossils from whatever humans and chimps evolved from, to humans and chimps. for instance, homo erectus is a transitional fossil. so, we dont have transitional fossils for everything because it takes very precise, very improbable circumstances for an animal's bones to become fossillized

Yes I know there are transitional fossils. The point I was trying to make is that they are not always apparent in the fossil record, as seen in the squirrel population of southern Britain.

But in these sorts of cases, I have seen creationist stating that there is no transition fossils, therefore no evolution. Most often it is when a species splits into to groups that they diverge, if at some later point the two now separate species mix, in the area of mixing there will be no evidence of transition, which is what is seen in the British Squirrel population.

 

[Loudmouth]

An excellent example of evolution without transition fossils has arisen in Britain over the past 150 years. In the mid 19th century Grey Squirrells escaped into the wide, and within hundred years had replaced the native Red Squirrels. Here is a Map of their present day distribution, as you can see there are almost no Red Squirrels left in the southern half of Britain, the Isle of Wight being a notable exception.

If a palaeontologist in the distant future found squirrel fossils covering this time period, he or she would notice an almost instantaneous change from Red Squirrels to Grey Squirrels as they are different anatomically, most noticeable the Grey Squirrels are much larger. They would also comment on the lack of transition fossils, which indeed is the case.

The reason for a lack of transition fossils is because Grey Squirrels were introduced by humans. This can and probably does happen often in the natural world; land bridges, floating debris etc could all act as vectors for the migration of species across impassable barriers.

So my question is to creationist.

Why do you always insist on transition fossils, when quite clearly they very often are not preserved, simply because they are not there?

This scenario was covered by Darwin in Origin of Species.

One other consideration is worth notice: with animals and plants that can propagate rapidly and are not highly locomotive, there is reason to suspect, as we have formerly seen, that their varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of transition between any two forms, is small, for the successive changes are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot. Most marine animals have a wide range; and we have seen that with plants it is those which have the widest range, that oftenest present varieties; so that with shells and other marine animals, it is probably those which have had the widest range, far exceeding the limits of the known geological formations of Europe, which have oftenest given rise, first to local varieties and ultimately to new species; and this again would greatly lessen the chance of our being able to trace the stages of transition in any one geological formation. --Chapter 9, OoS​

 

[Moaty]

Your example in no way shows evolution

 

[Nithavela]

Bad example, as the spreading of grey squirrels in England (and Europe as a whole) was initiated by humans who brought them from America. I have to agree with moaty, this argument proves nothing, it is misleading at best.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your example in no way shows evolution

However, it does illustrate why transitionals between species are exceedingly rare in the fossil record, as Gould and Eldredge explained in their theory Punctuated Equilibria. If a species evolves in separate geographic area and then migrates into the parent species habitat, replacing them in the process, the transition will be abrupt (or rather, punctuated). Darwin spoke of the same thing. This is exactly what we see with gray and red squirrels. It doesn't matter how they got there, either through man made migration or otherwise. What matters is the pattern of species distribution and it's relation to the fossil record.

Don't forget that the title of the thread is "Explanation of missing transitional fossils".

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Your example in no way shows evolution

It shows transition fossils are not always needed to explain changes in species.