• 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.

Transitional fossils: What are they?

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟29,524.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Exactly --- :thumbsup:

Now assume that time itself, i.e. your 14 billion years, is comprised of only 900 billion seconds.

You'll run out of actors in this movie, before you run out of frames.

i don't follow
 
Upvote 0

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟29,524.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Evolutionary change, however, isn't so smooth. So you might get a period of just white or black (i.e. little change) with relatively short periods of rapid evolutionary change. It's those shorter periods of change in which finding transitional fossils is key.


This is also true. evolution tends to change speeds so it would be necessary to find many swatches from a specific time to show the rapid change that sometimes take place. But the argument overall i think is that you don't need a fossil from every generation that ever existed to show evolution. All it takes is a few key fossils. This is done in math all the time.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
But the argument overall i think is that you don't need a fossil from every generation that ever existed to show evolution. All it takes is a few key fossils. This is done in math all the time.

Heck, you don't need fossils at all. There's plenty of other lines of evidence for evolution, but for some reasons creationists fixate on fossils.
 
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
Heck, you don't need fossils at all. There's plenty of other lines of evidence for evolution, but for some reasons creationists fixate on fossils.

In fact, all of these entirely independent lines of evidence all arriving at the same conclusion, and all ultimately supporting each other is probably the most sufficient piece of evidence for evolution there is.
 
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
So?

That just demonstrates that you don't understand how the fossil record serves as evidence.

Firstly, it's a lot more complete than you seem to realise, secondly, it's not just the fact that the fossils are transitional, but how old they are, where they're found, etc

Ugh, I don't even know where begin to pick apart that QV, there's just so much wrong with it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,006
52,622
Guam
✟5,144,266.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So?

That just demonstrates that you don't understand how the fossil record serves as evidence.

Firstly, it's a lot more complete than you seem to realise, secondly, it's not just the fact that the fossils are transitional, but how old they are, where they're found, etc

Ugh, I don't even know where begin to pick apart that QV, there's just so much wrong with it.
Like I said, that picture that depicts an ape walking behind cro-magnon, walking behind neanderthal, walking behind Homo sapiens is misleading --- in my opinion.

I don't for one minute believe an ape birthed cro-magnon, who birthed, neanderthal, etc.

In other words, there are probably billions and billions of pictures you should be able to put between each one.

Again, evolution is a cheap fps movie --- in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,006
52,622
Guam
✟5,144,266.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What criteria would you use to decide which fossils belong in the series, and in which order?
What do you mean, 'which fossils'?

Do we have any?

I contend we don't.

They never existed.

Yet you guys will still continue to believe in evolution --- despite all these missing links that make this weak theory look like Swiss cheese.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Heck, you don't need fossils at all. There's plenty of other lines of evidence for evolution, but for some reasons creationists fixate on fossils.

Perhaps it's because fossil evidence is easier to understand. DNA evidence is absolutely overwhelming, I agree, but it is hard for the layman to understand. It's much easier just to say, "Hey look, it's an apeman".

I ran across an excerpt from Dawkins new book. He uses a great analogy to explain why the creationist argument is bankrupt:

Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."
In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."
The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury was about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them, so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are lucky to have fossils at all.
Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution - ,In Pictures - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
What do you mean, 'which fossils'?

The billions that you say should exist. Let's say we stumble upon a fossil graveyard full of hominid fossils.

What criteria would you use to determine which are transitional, and in which order that they go in? Simple question.

Yet you guys will still continue to believe in evolution --- despite all these missing links that make this weak theory look like Swiss cheese.

You pretend as if fossils are the only evidence. They aren't, not by a long shot. Even if we didn't have a single fossil the fact of evolution would be obvious. As the quote in the post above remarks, the comparison of the genomes of living species, the morphology of living species, and the distribution of species across the globe is watertight evidence of evolution. Fossils are just a bonus.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What do you mean, 'which fossils'?

Do we have any?

I contend we don't.
You contend we don't have any fossils?? I content you don't have any Bibles.


They never existed.
I bet SATAN made them to fool us.


Yet you guys will still continue to believe in evolution --- despite all these missing links that make this weak theory look like Swiss cheese.
How so? Do you understand why the fossil record must by its very nature be incomplete? Or that there are numerous other lines of evidence that supports evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Aggie

Soldier of Knowledge
Jan 18, 2004
1,903
204
41
United States
Visit site
✟25,497.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Like I said, that picture that depicts an ape walking behind cro-magnon, walking behind neanderthal, walking behind Homo sapiens is misleading --- in my opinion.

I don't for one minute believe an ape birthed cro-magnon, who birthed, neanderthal, etc.

In other words, there are probably billions and billions of pictures you should be able to put between each one.

Again, evolution is a cheap fps movie --- in my opinion.

Can you answer my question, AV? I’d like to know how many transitional fossils you think we would need before we can justifiably say that the evidence supports evolution. If 14 of them between apes and humans isn’t enough, how many would be enough?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,006
52,622
Guam
✟5,144,266.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can you answer my question, AV? I’d like to know how many transitional fossils you think we would need before we can justifiably say that the evidence supports evolution. If 14 of them between apes and humans isn’t enough, how many would be enough?
I don't know, Aggie.

I don't know how evolution really works.

I just know that I've asked some pretty pointed questions and, judging from the answers (and non-answers), I conject that it is a cheap fps movie.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Again, evolution is a cheap fps movie --- in my opinion.

Yes, we get it already. But you're a guy with "science can take a hike" in his profile, so your opinion doesn't exactly carry any weight.

Anyway, do you have anything worthwhile to add to the thread or just these silly analogies?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Perhaps it's because fossil evidence is easier to understand. DNA evidence is absolutely overwhelming, I agree, but it is hard for the layman to understand. It's much easier just to say, "Hey look, it's an apeman".

That's true. And fossil finds tend to make the popular press a lot more, so I suppose I can see where people are coming from.

But still, thinking that evolutionary evidence revolves entirely--or even mostly--around fossils is about 40+ years out-of-date. Contemporary evolutionary theory rests primarily on genetics/genomics.

Or, as Dr. Francis Collins puts it: "Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."

I ran across an excerpt from Dawkins new book. He uses a great analogy to explain why the creationist argument is bankrupt:

That is a great analogy. The video footage is additional evidence, it does not detract from the overall picture. Likewise, fossils represent additional evidence, not a lack of evidence.
 
Upvote 0