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.
The theory of evolution says nothing about the rate of fossilization, or our chances of finding a specific fossil species after searching such a tiny percentage of the fossil bearing strata on Earth. All the theory of evolution says is what types of creatures were alive in the past, but nothing about fossilization.
Darwin spent an entire chapter explaining why the imperfect geologic record results in an imperfect fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html
For the same reasons we don't find an "abundance" of "non-transitional" fossils. Fossilization is very rare.As I understand it, that's the wrong question. The question should be, "Why don't we find an abundance of transitional fossils given that there should be evidence-a-plenty given the need for so many changes over time with respect to body plans?"
For the same reasons we don't find an "abundance" of "non-transitional" fossils. Fossilization is very rare.
"Transitional fossils" is a human concept that takes the place of creation.
Evolutionists make the rules and set the guidelines as to what constitutes a "transitional fossil."
To challenge [instant] creationists to identify features of something that doesn't exist is like I issuing a challenge to show evidence for an apple created ex nihilo.
I don't know. What do paleontologists have to say about it?as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.
As I understand it, that's the wrong question. The question should be, "Why don't we find an abundance of transitional fossils given that there should be evidence-a-plenty given the need for so many changes over time with respect to body plans?"
as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.
but we have plenty of fossil evidence of new and suddenly appearing body plans but no evidence in fossil form as to the precursors.
as I understand it, there is nearly zero so-called transitional fossils. I don't find the lack of fossil finds a compelling argument. Seems to me you'd statistically expect to find the same amount of transitional fossils as non transitional.
This is Zeno's Paradox-lite. It's true that if basically every animal that died produced a fossil, one would expect to be able to find all of the intermediates between any two species (up and down the tree). But not every animal produces a fossil. If, to use your example, we have fossils D and J, we can look for E, F, G, H, and I, but we shouldn't expect to find very many of them.
That said, there are sometimes relatively smooth sequences for closely related species that are alive, today. We've recovered a ton of intermediates between humans and chimpanzees, for example. But we only diverged about 6 million years ago.
This is a good example. A lot of "transitional" bones are found. However, in that case, we can never be sure WHERE did the ape end and WHERE did the human begin. If we apply this situation (enough fossils) to other animals, can we really say that one animal "evolved into" another animal?
We're talking about fossils. Posters have presented what they claim to be transitional fossils in numerous threads. Creationists say that they aren't really transitional fossils. Why aren't they transitional? What features does a FOSSIL need to be considered transitional?
Why should there be plenty of transitional fossils? Just because there had to be a lot of organisms does not mean there should be a lot of fossils of those organisms.
I have a sense of what crjmurray means by "transitional." What do you mean when you use that word? It may be that what you mean by "transitional" is predicted not to exist by evolution. Or it may be that what you mean by "transitional" actually applies to all fossils.
We are talking about fossils, fossils of animals that reproduced exactly like we observe today. Breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. There are no transitional fossils linking two species - unless you incorrectly call two different breeds species.
You know, just like they do with Finches. So if they can not get animals that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right before their eyes labeled correctly - I sure have no confidence they got those transitional fossils labeled correctly - nor I doubt the two they are trying to link.
You claim these are all separate species.
I claim they are all just different breeds of the same species, just like we observe before our eyes.
You are looking for links that do not exist, as each of those dinosaur came about from breed mating with breed producing a new breed. Just like we observe in the natural world. The empirical evidence goes against everything you are trying to claim. Just as all cats are one species and all dogs are of one species, so too were all of those dinosaur in the picture above one species.
You've given no good evidence yet that any of those claimed transitional fossils are related to anything, nor that two creatures you are trying to link are related. Those that are clearly just different breeds like Triceratops and T. Prorsus, you classify incorrectly as separate species just like those finches. And so you look for a transitional between them, when none existed in the first place. You simply observe the appearance of a new breed in the fossil record from two other breeds mating.
I'm not going to play the "IF evolution was true" game, because it isn't. There exist no transitional fossils because breed mates with breed producing new breeds. They just labeled them incorrectly as separate species when they are in actuality merely different breeds.
If you're familiar with the Cambrian strata, you'd know that the fossils found displayed new and unique complex body plans. And in previous strata there were found no precursors (similar body plans where modifications could take place).How do you determine if a body plan suddenly appears? What features would a fossil need in order to be a precursor? How did you determine that those precursors don't exist?
For the same reasons we don't find an "abundance" of "non-transitional" fossils. Fossilization is very rare.
This is a good example. A lot of "transitional" bones are found. However, in that case, we can never be sure WHERE did the ape end and WHERE did the human begin. If we apply this situation (enough fossils) to other animals, can we really say that one animal "evolved into" another animal?
If we have a fossil of an organism with a fully developed eye but no fossil evidence of organisms with developing eyes, perhaps that should tell us something. A transitional fossil are those fossils that are precursors to a current fossil under study. So in the case of the Cambrian fossils, why are there no precursors to those body plans? We have theories, drawings, but no real evidence. A complex body plan fully formed with no precursors suggests something other than the Darwinian model.
There's no hard line where ape ends and human begins. It's grey. It's grey because we decide what we want to call human and what we don't want to call human. There's no line in nature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?