The Cambrian problem

Jfrsmth said:

I did not create "transitional" fossils.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that these fossils are not transitional. How did you determine that?

You use the word "objectively" as if only you are being objective.

Click to expand...

Then show us what objective criteria you are using to determine that these fossils are not transitional. Prove me wrong.

I have been telling you: I do not see what makes a fossil transitional. All I see are fossils. Can't an evolutionist explain it to me?

Click to expand...

If you don't see what makes a fossil transitional then how can you say that there are no transitionals?

Is it because the fossils look different and are supposedly in various layers that makes them "transitional"? So, that would mean to an evolutionist that an Indohyus becomes a Cetotherium in about 12 steps based on pretty pictures and millions of years of mutations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)?

Click to expand...

To an evolutionist, a fossil with a mixture of features from earlier terrestrial mammals and modern cetaceans would be a transitional fossil. Are you using a different definition?

Variations within species is certainly science, but to say one animal changed into another is a stretch.

Click to expand...

A transitional species would necessarily have variations within that transitional species, would it not?

Jfrsmth said:

I did not create "transitional" fossils. Darwin did.

You use the word "objectively" as if only you are being objective. That was a nice setup for any future readers of this thread.

I have been telling you: I do not see what makes a fossil transitional. All I see are fossils. Can't an evolutionist explain it to me?

Is it because the fossils look different and are supposedly in various layers that makes them "transitional"? So, that would mean to an evolutionist that an Indohyus becomes a Cetotherium in about 12 steps based on pretty pictures and millions of years of mutations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)?

Variations within species is certainly science, but to say one animal changed into another is a stretch.

Click to expand...

Just for fun let me try. A transitional fossil would be one that is transitional in both time and form between two other fossils. So Homo erectus is transitional between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. I am no expert so all I can tell you is that Lucy had a smaller brain than Home e. and they have a smaller brain than us.

Here is the definition of transitional fossil that evolutionists are using:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

What definition are creationists using?

Jfrsmth said:

I encounter this all of the time with evolutionary thinking people - attack anyone who questions the almighty theory of evolution; attack the messenger; seek to belittle them, go after their character, ... instead of objectively examining and addressing the facts; can't we just stay on topic without your comments degrading to personal derision?

Me, I am not at all afraid to discover the truth, because I trust the God of the bible to work it all out. Evolutionists do not seem to have that peace. There does not seem to be any other recourse for them.

So, unless you can stay on topic, I will no longer reply to your comments, okay.

Click to expand...

And exactly how are you objectively examining the evidence?

Jfrsmth said:

You and I are looking at the same thing. I see just creatures of which there is evidence for in the fossil record; you, or evolutionists rather, see "transitions" from one creature to another. This is what I am talking about: two different worldviews or beliefs as you mentioned. Both are based on the evidence presented to us.

Click to expand...

No, you are ignoring much of the same evidence. Ignoring that evidence is not interpreting the same evidence differently. Case in point, the diagram below. We see 26 different genera of coelacanth in the Devonian only. Seven different genera in the Carboniferous only. Four different genera in the Permain, Fourteen still different genera in the Triassic. Four in the Jurassic, two in the Cretaceous and one in the Quaternary. They are all coelacanths with unique physiology and time in the geologic record. How can they not be transitional? How can they be where they are in the geologic record without evolution. Did they just pop into existence at just the right time and place? If you are not ignoring that evidence, then what is your interpretation of how they got where are.

Again, explain the fossil record without evolution. How did they get there without evolution and what same evidence are you citing to support your position.