• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Ioustinos

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,719
175
✟71,948.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hi Folks!!


This question is aimed at those who believe in evolution: If evolution is true, why aren't there tens of thousands of fossil transisitions from one species to another?


If there are such fossil records please provide reliable information. Thank you for your time and responses



Jesaiah
 

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not sure exactly how many there are, but depending on what you call "transitions", there are certainly thousands... more often from one *GROUP* of species to another, but a casual study of the hominid tree shows plenty of transitions.

Out of curiousity, could you show the reasoning by which you arrived at the "expected" number?

Wouldn't a non-evolutionary theory require *NO* transitional forms? I don't recall the Bible stating that God made the reptiles, and the birds, and also some reptile-birds but He killed them all before we saw any.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟25,525.00
Faith
Catholic
Wow. Even the creationists at "Answers in Genesis" have decided to leave this one alone, and recommend that other creationists do so as well: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

I actually tried to make a comprehensive list of transitional fossils, but it was just too long and new ones are being discovered all the time.
SO, I will direct you to a site that has done all the work already:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (and that one is 5 years old)
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/transitionals.htm (should be more up to date)


Heck, there are even LIVING transitional species. Larvacean tunicates, amphioxus, tree shrews, ribbon worms, etc. etc.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jesaiah
This question is aimed at those who believe in evolution: If evolution is true, why aren't there tens of thousands of fossil transisitions from one species to another?

What makes you think that there should be "tens of thousands" of fossil transitions?

If there are such fossil records please provide reliable information. Thank you for your time and responses

Well, I hope you wont mind us linking you to a resource on transitional fossils.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
 
Upvote 0
Heck, there are even LIVING transitional species. Larvacean tunicates, amphioxus, tree shrews, ribbon worms, etc. etc.
No, there aren't.

Those creatures were created the way they are from the start.

To claim something is a "transitional species" doesn't make it so. Assumptions and lies don't count.

You could claim a seal is a transitional species between a a land mammal and a sea mammal.

You could claim a salamander is a transitional species between a sea animal and a land animal.

You could claim a frog is a transitional species between fish and reptiles, and how they just need a few more million years to develop reptile characteristics. Talk about myths.

You could fabricate a whole transitional myth using animals living today, claiming one evolved into the other (ex: claiming dogs evolved into horses or vice versa), but it would be a lie. Many evolutionists practice this art of lies.

Fish did not evolve into amphibians.
Amphibians did not evolve into reptiles.
Reptiles did not evolve into mammals.

Macro-evolution never occured.
Animals were created the way they are from the start, with variations in each species developing over time as the animal populations increased.
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What I really think it funny is that they just assume that it is by the way it looks...Hey, that bird kinda looks like this one..so they must have a common ansestor..Hey, you kinda look like that dog over there...if I squin my eyes and turn to the left...yeah, so you must be a transitional organism between a dog and some other form of life!!
 
Upvote 0

Ioustinos

Veteran
Feb 6, 2002
1,719
175
✟71,948.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I have not set any specific number to be met but surely there would be a plethora of fossil records that would back up evolution. And such fossile records would not have questions or doubts about them.

From what I have read, correct me if I am wrong, according to evolution species went through "transitions" as groups. Therefore there would be many transitory fossils that record the changes overtime within this group, not just one or two.


Thanks for your replies


Jesaiah
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Upvote 0
"Since there are candidates..."
Yeah, like the dog is an ancient evolutionary ancestor of the horse!

After all, they both have four legs and a tail! And their skeletal structures are kinda similar, aren't they? So the horse must have evolved from the dog!

Evolutionists make a habit of fabricating such lies and assumptions to fit their spurious theory.
 
Upvote 0
"There's more to it, than just examining the way something "looks": "

Really..so tell me in your words (try to make it short) how do they do it more then how it looks?

Let's recreate the wheel here. Instead of pointing you to the same answers that are generally agreed upon, spelled out very clearly and comprehensively, where as many potential questions and objections are answered as is possible - lets hear it again, "in your own words."

The TO archive was put together just because so many people have these exact questions. Why not read the link that was posted, and come back with any further questions or clarifications that are needed? Why not check to see if your objections are answered there, and if they are not, then come back and state the objections that aren't covered there, or aren't covered there convincingly or adequately?

The answer to your question is that they examine specific morphological structures, as they change over time in organisms that have overall similarity. The structures they look for are the ones that distinguish the bones of one group from the bones of another group (for instance, the specific structures that distinguish a reptile skeleton from a mammal skeleton). Finding a transition from a reptile with some "mammal" skeletal structures, to a reptile with some more "mammal" skeletal structures(or with those structures that were found before more pronounced), is identifying a fossil as transitional. A platypus is not transitional between a duck and a beaver. The similarities are gross apparent similarities of the "looks like" kind and not specific derived structures.

Another thing that is considered is age. One cannot consider a fossil as transitional between reptiles and mammals if it is found in the Oligocene period, because that is significantly after the actual transition occcurred. The ages of the fossils must be taken into account. A fossil that was not transitional because of age might still be considered a descendent of a transitional form, but would carry much less evidentiary weight than a reptile-mammal transition found briefly before the fossil advent of mammals, during the Cretaceous period, for example.

But all of these questions are already answered, as someone else pointed out. They are answered more clearly, and more concisely, in the TO archives. The purpose of the TO archives is to avoid the constant re-inventing of the wheel. If you come across an answer there that doesn't satisfy you for whatever reason, or if you can't find your question answered there, then there is ample reason to push that point here. Then you need not worry about us pointing you to the TO archive for the answer, because you will already know that it lacks the answer or does not give it well enough.

The transitional fossil FAQ is found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by s0uljah
Why not give them an objective scientific site for this evidence, not a biased one like talkorigins.

Scientists do their work in journals, not on web-sites. The few that do produce web-sites for public consumption are not doing science there, but doing explanation.

You won't find a site that is "objective" with respect to evolution/creation.

Whenever possible, TO references their statements to science research done in peer review journals. If you are not satisfied with their objectivity and you have access to a library, you can check their work.

Whenever possible, I post links to the ASA as well. The coverage is usually not as comprehensive, but it seems more "objective" to people here, because the contributors are (usually conservative) Christians.

The ASA article on the fossil record (including transitional forms) is found here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
Fish did not evolve into amphibians.

Bzzt.  It sure kinda looks like they did.  Here's one specimen:



Reptiles did not evolve into mammals.
\

Bzzt.  Wrong again.  Here is a sequence of fossils show the transformation of the reptile jaw to the mammalian jaw and middle ear.



Animals were created the way they are from the start, with variations in each species developing over time as the animal populations increased.

It sure took God a long time to get horses right.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

Here's a little tip for you, Cyclo Rider, courtesy of St. Augustine:

 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟25,525.00
Faith
Catholic
Cyclo rider, calling names does nothing to help your position. THank you.

Comparitive anatomy studies the similaries between organisms, and can actually distinguish between true similarities and superficial ones. For example, litoptern skeletons look a heck of a lot like horse skeletons at first glance, but comparitive anatomy reveals that they are from distinct lineages. The same with thylacosmilus (a marsupial) and sabre tooth tigers (cats). They have a superficial resemblance due to convergant evolution, but belong to entirely different groups. Even though true sabre tooths appear in south america just as marsupial sabre tooths disappear (in the fossil record), no competent anatomist would try and claim that one evolved into another.
 
Upvote 0