There are no transitional forms

[gamespotter10]

O RLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

So, creationists, How do you explain all these transitional fossils?

 

[Phred]

A - B

We just found a transitional form between them.

A - AB - B

Creationist, "Where's AA and BB? See, there are no transitional forms!"

For every transitional form you find creationists think there are two more missing.

 

[lemmings]

The Hovind response.... How can you prove that any of those creatures ever had any babies.

 

[Aron-Ra]

O RLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

So, creationists, How do you explain all these transitional fossils?

That's a short list. Zoologist Kathleen Hunt posted a list of a few hundred of the best ones.

 

[RedAndy]

O RLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

So, creationists, How do you explain all these transitional fossils?

Let me explain to you from personal experience what a Creationist means when they mean "transitional fossil." I had a friend at college who was a Creationist, and when I asked him about Archaeopteryx and how it fit into his "there are no transitional fossils" claim, he responded thus:

"For a fossil to be transitional, we have to be able to map a lineage at every stage of development between the ancestor and the descendant using fossil specimens."

In other words, my friend wanted me to show him a complete generation-by-generation lineage of a dinosaur evolving into a bird before he would accept that Archaeopteryx was a transitional fossil, and that dinosaurs really had evolved into birds. It's exactly as Phred said - every time you bridge a gap with a transitional fossil, the Creationists simply point to the fact that two new gaps have been created.

Aron-Ra mentions what I assume is this FAQ by Kathleen Hunt. In it Hunt notes that even if we were to find a generation-by-generation lineage depicting a macroevolutionary transition, we would not be able to verify that it really was an example of evolution in action and not just one big coincidence. So the Creationists really are using strawmen to create irrefutable arguments.

 

[Impaler]

Some creationists claim that a transitional is only a transitional if we can prove it's a descendant of one kind and predecessor of another. On one hand it nullifies the claim that their are transitional fossils. On the other hand it nullifies the claim that there should be any transitional fossils. There is simply no way you can determine ancestry from fossils alone.

Even AiG occasionally uses the arguement that all organisms are "fully formed", thus not in the process of evolution. Where evolution predicts partially formed organisms I have no idea.

 

[RedAndy]

Even AiG occasionally uses the arguement that all organisms are "fully formed", thus not in the process of evolution. Where evolution predicts partially formed organisms I have no idea.

That's easy. The Archaeopteryx feather doesn't actually come from an Archaeopteryx - in that period of history there really were "partially formed" Archaeopteryx that consisted only of feathers!

Have that, Creationists!