• 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.

Lack of Transitional Forms

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Godfixated said:
The Lack of Transitional forms.

Everything should be a transition form, but the problem is to much of what should be in transition is really a dead end. The case against evolution is often based on too rapid of explosions and to often mass extinctions.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Godfixated said:
I was asked a couple days ago to post a topic about evidence against evolution; so, I'll start with most glaring and obvious of this evidence: The Lack of Transitional forms.
So says you. Science disagrees.

I had a couple big tests in the last couple of days; so, I wasn't able to post anything.
What kind of tests? Does it have anything to do with biology or geology? Science?

I will first come out and say that we have not found any transitional forms proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
In science, nothing is 'proven beyond a shadow of a doubt'. Don't expect the theory of evolution to be any different.

Even the often touted Australipithescene australis or Homo erectus is not an exactly bonafide precursor to Homo sapiens, even though scientists will say they are, there is no proof that they actually were mankind's ancestors.
There are plenty more areas of controversy in science, not just limited to this narrow field of discussion. That's how science works. This process is ever fine-tuning, as we gain a better understanding of our natural world.

They could have been a different species all entirely.
They also could have been alien life forms from another planet. They also could have been fire creatures, living inside volcanos. This is where critical thinking and sound reasoning play a vital role.


Plus, there is a lack of transitional forms from those hominids to the humans of today.
Tell that to all the natural museums and universities around the world.

:::sniff-sniff:::

Kent Hovind and friends?



Welcome to the discussions, Godfixated.
 
Upvote 0

Lucretius

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2005
4,382
206
37
✟5,541.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is Creationist logic when it comes to transitional forms:

1 2 — You lack a transitional 1.5!
1 1.5 2 — You lack a transitional 1.25 and 1.75!
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 — You lack a transitional 1.125, 1.375, 1.625, and 1.875!

Need I say more?
 
Reactions: vipertaja
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Good observation. I've noticed the same thing.

One more unreasonable standard they try to set - observation of any individual giving birth to another species.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Godfixated said:
There should be millions of transitional forms for each species because of all the changes needed to occur and we should be able to build a timeline with these fossils and know exactly what changes took place.

Note the bolded goalpost shifting. We go from "there are no transitionals," to, after being presented with some, Zeno's paradox, then after being presented with more, a request for "millions" and the demand that we have not the periodic evolutionary snapshot in the fossil record, but a flim with every single frame intact.

Of course the existance of ONE transitional fossil is problematic, but as soon as YECs see them, it's off to the races to shift the goal posts, change the subject or just deny they're real.

Your taxes are paying for perfectly good information that you seem unaware of. Here's Turkana Boy. Now whatever sort of handwaving you want to do about the connections involved, how do you explain the existance of a being with a human body and an ape like head in the first place? According to Creationists, he shouldn't exist at all!
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Godfixated said:
Unless you guys believe in Punctuated Equilibrium, which I am sorry to say but everything is lost if any of you believe in that.
Please give us a definition of Punctuated Equilibrium, so we know you know what you are talking about. I suspect you don't.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
truth above all else said:
looks like just a very ugly human, not dissimilar to Piltdown man which was subsequently proven fraudulent,in any case how does a deceased ugly man constitute a transitional intermediate

You Creationists are so tiresomely predictable.

Why don't you take a closer look at his head - which we have all of btw, as opposed to the Piltdown "skull" - which I doubt you've ever seen or could actually describe.

Now tell me how this is not an ape like skull and use real scientific terms not amorphus colloquialisms like "ugly."

- darn UBB tags

- addtionally, now that I've had some time to think about it, I'd really like you to address a few issues.
1. The most famous "photo" of the "Loch Ness Monster" was exposed as a fake, as was the Cottingly fairies. Will you also claim anything claiming to evidence cryptozoology or other paranormal things like the fairies are automatically "fakes" despite them agreeing with your Weltanschauung?
2. What evidence that you have that Turkana Boy is a hoax? You have nothing beyond personal incredulity and a cheap attempt at a rhetorical "gotcha" from your response. Do you have any bona fide evidence that it's a hoax?
3. And I think this is the most important one. For all the cries of "Piltdown" and "Nebraska" etc. that I hear from Creationists who can't face the reality that we have an almost entirely complete skeleton of an ape man, they shuck and jive when asked how exactly it was that the Piltdown hoax was uncovered. For those of you lurkers out there, it was uncovered after genuine Australiphicine and Homo fossils were found that demonstrated Piltdown to be a fraud. If anything, Piltdown helped solidify the paleontology of early humans, it helped us to more accurately predict what to expect... which we did with Turkana Boy.
 
Upvote 0

Dal M.

...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...
Jan 28, 2004
1,144
177
43
Ohio
✟17,258.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married

It's already been said, but: show me. Show me the evolutionary model which features the hyrax evolving into the modern horse. Actually, I want to make this easy on you - just cite the journal article or textbook in which you found this bit of information and I'll do the legwork, okay?

(You know, if you'd been honest and admitted that you'd confused the hyrax with Hyracotherium, you might've been able to get out of this with your dignity intact.)

Incidentally, the recently-discovered coelocanth isn't identical to either of the fossil species of coelocanth - it's so different it was classified as not just a different species, but an entirely different genus. So either a.) the modern coelocanth is descended from the fossil coelocanths and speciation has, despite your claims, been demonstrated to occur, or b.) the modern coelocanth is entirely unrelated to the fossil coelocanth and you have no idea why you even brought it up.
 
Reactions: Dannager
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
truth above all else said:
Here's Turkana BoY



looks like just a very ugly human, not dissimilar to Piltdown man which was subsequently proven fraudulent,in any case how does a deceased ugly man constitute a transitional intermediate
This is one of the funniest creationist responses I have read to being shown a hominid fossil... "a deceased ugly man."

This is, of course, followed by a statutory ignorant reference to Piltdown Man, which I am sure, Mr "Truth" knows nothing about (other than that atheistic, evil, stupid scientists tried to use it to fool God-fearing, faithful Chirstians into believing they were nothing but animals).
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟25,525.00
Faith
Catholic
Here is just a brief sampling of the transitional fossil forms listed on this website (there are many more) The images not from that website


Please feel free to dispell these arugemnts. For instance why is Thrinaxodon not a transitional?
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟25,525.00
Faith
Catholic

Sorry to dissapoint YOU fixated. And THAT statement comes from your own fellow creationists. Please check out the creationst website Answersingenesis.com , specifically their "arguments creationists should not use page".

There you will find that your own fellow creationists caution you to NOT USE the no speciation arguement as well as the no transitional forms argument.
 
Upvote 0