Lack of Transitional Forms

[JohnR7]

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.

 

[Dannager]

Okay, now where have new species sprung up?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Done ranting yet?

EDIT: Beaten by Nooj one whole page ago. Serves me right, not reading the intervening posts and all.

 

[Nightson]

 

[TheBear]

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.

Also, there are many examples of often touted "transitional forms" being proven that they weren't the missing links that scientists were looking. Let's not forget the infamous horse series where scientists believed that the hyrax evolved into the modern day horse. Not only was this theory proven wrong by the eventual discovery of the hyrax in modern day, but also many of the fossilized animals in the series had conspicuously different amounts of ribs, sich as one species have 10 ribs, while the next species in the series had 12, and then the next had 10 again. Another example of this can be seen with the Ceolocanth, a fossilized fish who was said to be be one of the first to walk on to dry land because appendable fins. This theory was later shattered by fishermen catching Ceolocanths off of Madagascar. Scientists later discovered that Ceolocanths were deep sea fish. Those are just two examples off the top of my head.

:::sniff-sniff:::

Kent Hovind and friends?



Welcome to the discussions, Godfixated.

 

[Nightson]

 

[Lucretius]

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?

 

[TheBear]

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?

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.

 

[USincognito]

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!

 

[Split Rock]

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.

 

[Sabina41]

Axolotls!!!
What great little creatures. Retention of juvenile characteristics and regeneration! Woohoo!

-Ashley (a bit of a bio dork)

 

[truth above all else]

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

 

[USincognito]

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.

 

[Dal M.]

That is a new rationalization for evolutionists' inadequacies due to the horse series because when I first started studying the argument of evolution versus creation in freshmen year of high school this was never a argument that evolutionists every used when I brought it up to them because when the horse series came out, they really did believe that the hyrax evolved into the horse.

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.

 

[Dannager]

You know, it may be a dirty little pleasure but nothing quite warms my cockles than exposing a dishonest argument for what it is. And frankly, my cockles are downright toasty at this point.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Awww man. I knew as soon as I left this place for awhile he’d finally post. Now I’ve missed all the fun.

 

[Split Rock]

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).

 

[Nooj]

And also:

Transitional forms of lobe-finned fish to tetrapods.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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

* Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.



* Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.



* Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.


* Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)


* Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".


* Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.

* Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".


* Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.



* Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.

* Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.

* Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.


* Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.

* Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
* Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.

* Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.

* Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.

* Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.



* Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.

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

 

[Nightson]

looks like

*BUZZZ* I'm sorry you'll have to try again.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I'm sorry but digging for over 150 years for something all over the world and coming up with nothing is a little more than the absence of evidence. Okay, now where have new species sprung up? No where in macroevolution. This only happens in what people call "microevolution" which is nothing more than adaptation and even those adaptations don't create new species. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I didn't look at any Creationist websites before I posted this or anything like that, I have just been studying this for a long time and you present to me the same thing that everyone else does, which, essentially isn't an argument.

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.