Intermediate fossils

[pyro214]

When i argue against evolution i usually state that there is no intermediate stages backing up evolution, even though evolutoin suggests there should be billions of them. Am i the only one that has yet to see a intermediate fossil?

 

[jwu]

Let's fix the goalposts first: What exactly do you want when you ask for a transitional fossil? I.e. what is your definition of the term?

 

[philadiddle]

There are lots of transitional fossils. To fully understand just how many there are requires a lot of reading. Something that can be a problem when dealing with this topic is that if someone doesn't want to recognize what a transitional form is, they will never accept that they are. For example, if fossil A is found 300 meters down in the strata, and fossil E is found 40 meters down in the strata, i could say that E evolved from A, to which I would be asked to provide transitional fossils. So after much searching I find fossil C, which is 160 meters down and shows characteristics of both A and E. Follow me so far? Now someone could say, "But now you have two gaps, prove that A evolved into C, and that C evolved into E. So i search and search and eventually find fossil D, 100 meters down. It is a perfect example of characteristics between C and E. But someone could still say, "now you have 3 gaps, A to C, C to D, and D to E."

See how this could go on and on? This is why you should ask yourself how you would identify a transitional fossil and how many are sufficient evidence.

Anyways, let's take whale evolution as an easy to explain example. Whale's allegedly evolved as a part of the ungulate group (hooved terrestrial mammals). This was first put forward along with many other possible ancestors, but there was little evidence at the time. Now there are lots of fossils supporting the evolution from ungulates, while the other option that had been put forward are now laid to rest.

Sinonyx - wolf sized ungulate which also speciated into other modern day hooved mammals. It existed 60 million years ago.
Pakicetus - 52 million years ago.
Ambulocetus - 120 meters higher in the strata
Rodhocetus - 46-47 million years ago
Basilosaurus - 35-45 million years ago
Dorudon - about 40 million years ago

Both basilosaurus and dorudon are fully aquatic whales, and led to the whales we have today. Not only are these all sequential in features, but they are found in order in the strata layers.

For a lot more detail and other evidences for whale evolution, here is my source http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

The point of this post is to demonstrate that there are lots of intermediate fossils, but I can't be expected to go through them all so I'll just reference some of them for you with links.

Horse Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/fhc.htm

Homonids - Human Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.becominghuman.org/

Vertabrae Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

reptile-birds
reptile-mammals
ape-humans
legged whales
legged seacows
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

various
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils#Some_Examples_of_Transitional_Fossils
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/

 

[philadiddle]

Just found a great fossil site and had to mention it.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/index.htm

I'll summarize some of the links so you can get to what u want quickly

The link http://www.fossilmuseum.net/FossilSites.htm shows a general tree of life, as per the fossils found in the strata. You'll notice when you look at the page all the white underlined words are links you can click to get more detail from. It also gives the places of most of the actual sites the fossils were found at.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/FossilGalleries.htm is a list of fossils to which you can view the images.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm is a fossil record and has links at the top of the page to different eras.

I would like to put forward a question. Why are all different types of fossils found in sequential order? If God made all "kinds" of animals and once, and there was a devistating global flood, wouldn't they be mixed up?

 

[pyro214]

so there is evidence, i thought that christianity disagrees with evolution though?

 

[KerrMetric]

Am i the only one that has yet to see a intermediate fossil?

You have seen them and so have all the other people who say there are none.

 

[KerrMetric]

so there is evidence, i thought that christianity disagrees with evolution though?

Now I think you are faking. You might as well say Christianity disagrees with the colour blue or disagrees with bicycles.

 

[philadiddle]

so there is evidence, i thought that christianity disagrees with evolution though?

Huh, it's odd how quickly i convinced you. BTW, there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution.

 

[pyro214]

Huh, it's odd how quickly i convinced you. BTW, there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution.

The Bible says God created humans, animals, the world.. etc,

Evolution states that through mutations humans/ animals were evolved.

dont they contridict eachother?

 

[KerrMetric]

dont they contridict eachother?

No.

Could you please tell me the Scriptural verses that describe how God actually put people and animals together. You know, like a recipe book.

 

[FishFace]

Sort of, pyro. It depends on whether you believe in a literal genesis account - or rather, believe that the Bible is the perfect, literal truth, and thus believe genesis literally, then god made the earth in six days, and snoozed afterwards.
If you do, then evolution contradicts this belief, since scientists claim the earth was created in a much longer period of time, and the development of life was incredibly gradual.
On the other hand, if you believe that the bible in part should be taken non-literally, then perhaps your belief is non-contradictory.

 

[pyro214]

wow, this is alot differnt then i thought. Never really considered it not being 6 literal days.

one more thing, doesnt the Bible timeline only fit 6k-10k years, evolution would take 3.5billion years if started from a bacterial cell. Is this 6-10k years also differnt then i imagined?

 

[Dannager]

This is too easy. Most creationists are incredibly steadfast in their views, yet pyro214 seems to be entirely open to reason. Either we have an extremely rare sort of creationist who is genuinely open to reason on our hands, or we have an evolutionist pretending to be a creationist on another account.

 

[[serious]]

so there is evidence, i thought that christianity disagrees with evolution though?

Only in so much as Christianity disagrees with geometry by giving a value of pi as 3.

Mr. Poe?

 

[KerrMetric]

This has all the hallmarks of a ruse.

 

[pyro214]

*ment to write in blue, not yellow....simply highlight it with mouse to make it readible*

This is too easy. Most creationists are incredibly steadfast in their views

false, maybe on this forum yes but in the real world....many christians have quesitons about there own religion, why else would there be a "debate section" on these forums

, yet pyro214 seems to be entirely open to reason.

this is the first christian forum ive registered to. Id trust that people who discuss these things, lots of posts, would post things that are true...evidence presented sofar has backed them up, why would i think otherwise?

Either we have an extremely rare sort of creationist who is genuinely open to reason on our hands, or we have an evolutionist pretending to be a creationist on another account.

ive been a chritsian since i was 4, and baptised at 12. if you think im rare then you really need to get off these forums and step into the real world....theres more of me then there are you. Is every chritsian 100% satisfied with there view on there religion? neither am i, i like to discuss christianity as much as i can, theres always somthing to be learnt

im sorry if you feel like im some for of evolutinoist trying to prove christianity wrong. In other forums, on the debate section, religion is always brought up....im simply restating comments i have read and argued against in the past.

i came to this forum because i had no answer to a statment that was made, u may of thought this was to easy....check out the stamtment i currently have no answer for:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4573386-new-old-laws-this-ones-tough-s.html#post30673524


source of Bible timeline, this and the several others i have viewed:
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/timeline_online.html

it says 4000 years, many Christians, including myself up to now.., state the world is no older then 10k years old....

 

[jwu]

ve been a chritsian since i was 4, and baptised at 12. if you think im rare then you really need to get off these forums and step into the real world....theres more of me then there are you. Is every chritsian 100% satisfied with there view on there religion? neither am i, i like to discuss christianity as much as i can, theres always somthing to be learnt

Well, people like you are a rare species on these messageboards (and other Christian messageboards as well). Most who come here and to the others have their own interpretation of most Biblical passages, especially Genesis, already set in stone. In fact i think most here were already surprised that you didn't simply abandon this thread after the list of transitionals was posted, as that is what happens in very most cases. It may be different in the real world, but here people like you are very rare. Reps!

 

[FishFace]

wow, this is alot differnt then i thought. Never really considered it not being 6 literal days.

one more thing, doesnt the Bible timeline only fit 6k-10k years, evolution would take 3.5billion years if started from a bacterial cell. Is this 6-10k years also differnt then i imagined?

The 6-10k figure is worked out purely by adding up the "begats" in the old testament (assuming you've read the Bible, you quite possibly don't remember those, since they're damn tedious, but they are there!)

That these are incorrect is more certain than evolution, but this has less of an impact on your interpretation, really, since it's quite easy to see the old testament as a history/legends of the Jews. Most ancient cultures start the world about when their culture popped into being.

But as for the meat, there are many many many pieces of evidence that we can use to calculate the approximate age of the earth, or at least, provide a lower boundary.
One of the simplest is just counting the rings that are formed in, for example, antarctic ice sheets. Sort of like a tree, except these rings are on top of each other, each layer represents a year. Counting the layers, we get an initial minimum of around about 120,000 years.

 

[pyro214]

The 6-10k figure is worked out purely by adding up the "begats" in the old testament (assuming you've read the Bible, you quite possibly don't remember those, since they're damn tedious, but they are there!)

That these are incorrect is more certain than evolution, but this has less of an impact on your interpretation, really, since it's quite easy to see the old testament as a history/legends of the Jews. Most ancient cultures start the world about when their culture popped into being.

But as for the meat, there are many many many pieces of evidence that we can use to calculate the approximate age of the earth, or at least, provide a lower boundary.
One of the simplest is just counting the rings that are formed in, for example, antarctic ice sheets. Sort of like a tree, except these rings are on top of each other, each layer represents a year. Counting the layers, we get an initial minimum of around about 120,000 years.

yourve been very helpful, thanks

The last question that comes to my mind when thinking about the age of earth/evolution/the Bible is why Jesus was sent to us only 2k years ago? If humans have been around for so long, why 2k years ago?

thanks again

EDIT:

Sort of, pyro. It depends on whether you believe in a literal genesis account - or rather, believe that the Bible is the perfect, literal truth, and thus believe genesis literally, then god made the earth in six days, and snoozed afterwards.
If you do, then evolution contradicts this belief, since scientists claim the earth was created in a much longer period of time, and the development of life was incredibly gradual.
On the other hand, if you believe that the bible in part should be taken non-literally, then perhaps your belief is non-contradictory.

Just read Gensesis, it says he created light/darkness...and seperated them. Then after each "day" it says, "Evening passed, and morning came". what isyour view on this?
Im not very good at interpediting the Bible, apparently i dont read it as much as i should.

 

[ReverendDG]

yourve been very helpful, thanks

The last question that comes to my mind when thinking about the age of earth/evolution/the Bible is why Jesus was sent to us only 2k years ago? If humans have been around for so long, why 2k years ago?
because, the whole man-god thing hasn't been around that long in comparision to how long humans have been around
thanks again

EDIT:

Just read Gensesis, it says he created light/darkness...and seperated them. Then after each "day" it says, "Evening passed, and morning came". what isyour view on this?
Im not very good at interpediting the Bible, apparently i dont read it as much as i should.

the israelites believed god made the light and the darkness, that he created every thing. this doesn't make what the bible says true or true in how god did it, only that this is the myth of a group of people