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.
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.
Once again people. Breed mates with breed producing a new breed within the species. No transitional exists between the old (pair of breeds) and the new breed. Why all of you won't accept this empirical proof is beyond me? Any you want to claim as transitional due to evolution is simply an incorrect classification of both the breeds you are trying to link together and the transitional. This is clear by the empirical observations. There is no magic line of transition. New breeds come into existence virtually overnight when they are born. In the wild they would go through a short period of flux as they continued to interbreed with other breeds before settling in to breeding within their own breed.
All "transitional" forms are squeezed and included in that thin "line". So the line is easy to see. The only problem is that the transition can not been seen.
Are you a lawyer? You split hairs like a lawyer.No the question was :
And has been answered. Stick to the subject of the OP please.
We do find them. Most represent small changes between species, rather than the types representative of transitions between major groups. Do you think the latter should be more numerous than the former?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?"
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.
Take it as a theoretical challenge. If such species existed, what do you expect they would look like?"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.
All "transitional" forms are squeezed and included in that thin "line". So the line is easy to see. The only problem is that the transition can not been seen.
Isn't that excuse a little worn out by now? We have plenty of triceratops, plenty of T. Prorsus.
That's like asking:Take it as a theoretical challenge. If such species existed, what do you expect they would look like?
If there's a number larger than 4 that exists between 3 & 4, what would it look like?
So basically,if there were transitionals, you wouldn't recognize one.That's like asking:
But you have seen fossils presented as transitional, correct?
Yes. At least fossils that are claimed to be transitional. Archaeopteryx comes to mind. Here's a list I managed to find: http://transitionalfossils.com/pics.html However I've never been convinced that these actually represent species changes or are simply a unique species of their own.
Can you point out one example to examine? Also, I would expect at least a fair representation of each stage of transition would be found. It seems what we have is a strata of fully developed body plans followed by gaps in the fossil record only to be followed by another strata of more unique fully developed body plans. That's odd to me.We do find them. Most represent small changes between species, rather than the types representative of transitions between major groups. Do you think the latter should be more numerous than the former?
Can you point out one example to examine? Also, I would expect at least a fair representation of each stage of transition would be found.
It seems what we have is a strata of fully developed body plans followed by gaps in the fossil record only to be followed by another strata of more unique fully developed body plans. That's odd to me.
What features would a fossil need in order to convince you?
Also, a transitional fossil would be a unique species of their own. That is what evolution expects to see.
I would expect to see fossils that clearly show the gradual changes along the way and not simply a full body plan.
We mostly see the endgame (maybe exclusively). We have millions of fossils with thousands of different species. It's not like finding fossils is rare.
But you have seen fossils presented as transitional, correct?
And I have also been told that birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species. Doesn't make that any more true than those fossils presented as transitional, since there are no transitional fossils between breeds.
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?