Why transitional fossils prove evolution true.

[Notedstrangeperson]

It is a staple of almost every biology book on the market: drawings of colored bones that show how evolution left its fingerprints on animals of common descent. These drawings point out how similar structure proves that we all come from one ancestor. The proof, they say, is as plain as the hand in front of our face.
Objectively, however, similar design and function can prove nothing. An iPod and an iPhone may have very similar parts, for example, but that certainly doesn’t mean the iPhone evolved from the iPod because of hardware glitches. Instead, because we have objective knowledge of history, we know that the same company designed both, which accounts for the similar design.
In the same way, similar structures in animals are just as strong an evidence for a common Designer leaving His mark on the works of His hand. Human designers often use similar solutions across a wide range of products. Why would we expect God not to do the same?

From Answeringenesis.org (myth 9)​

Equally I could have called this "Why common design does NOT prove Creationism".

Often creationists will claim there are no transitional fossils, which to evolutionists may seem strange considering how many examples there are out there. Homology is often used to show common descent - put simply, this means the more similar different organisms are the greater the chance that they are related.

But do similarities really prove evolution? Couldn't what we think of as examples of relatedness really be examples of common design? Well no, probably not.

Convergent Evolution:
Many species which are clearly not related show highly similar structures. Insects, birds, pterodactyls and bats all evolved the ability to fly independantly - as shown by the different ways they fly and their varying skeletal structures. Similarities between such unrelated creatures is an analogy, not homology
If we're looking for examples of common design, convergent evolution and analogies would be much better than transitional fossils.

Differences between similar but unrelated species.
If convergent evolution is evidence of common design then presumably animals which lives similar lives should have similar structures. Generally this is true - most herbivores for example have flat teeth which help them grind their food - yet this is not always the case. Some herbivores have large canine teeth, something normally seen in carnivores. Such animals include the chinese water deer, elephants and geladas.

Differences between related species:
Many creationists accepts microevolution but not macroevolution. It's quite obvious for example that all bear species are related. Yet within the same species animals can have very different behaviours and as such very different appearences. Polar bears lives exclusively on meat and have long, narrow, dog-like faces. Pandas by contrast eat nothing but vegetation and have flat, round faces.
So - same species, different design.

Analogies / convergent evolution / 'common design' appear in many forms and are not evidence of common descent. Homologies however, are.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Point?

 

[Hespera]

That talk about proving a theory is pretty ridiculous?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Point?

Common design (if such a thing exists) applies to analogies, not homologies.
Huh, managed to sum up a damn long post in 12 words.

 

[Blayz]

Kind of decent post, but in a strict biological sense "homology" and "related" are synonymous. One doesn't prove the other, they mean the same thing. Homologues don't prove common descent, they imply it. Also, whilst gross morphological comparison and fossils are all very exciting, the real evidence for both evolution and common descent lies in genetics.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What transitional fossils?

YouTube - Dr. David Berlinski: Transitional Sequence (Clip 4)

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, On the Origin of Species, November 24th 1859

"Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, On the Origin of Species, November 24th 1859

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.” (Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140, Professor at Harvard University in Boston).

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks.” (David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record”, Science, Vol. 213, July 17, 1981, p. 289).

"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)

 

[Nostromo]

AoS, for someone who loves Aristotle you seem to hate logic and the search for truth.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Aristotle specifically rejected the hypothesis of biological evolution (Anaximander/Empedocles).

Aristotle was a creationist who believed in Intelligent Design.

"He [Empedocles] tells us also that most of the parts of animals came to be by chance." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"... it is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from one kind and a man from another ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"When one man said, then, that reason was present -- as in animals, so throughout nature -- as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, 350 B.C.

"As with these productions of art, so also is it with the productions of nature." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"Empedocles, then, was in error when he said that many of the characters presented by animals were merely the result of incidental occurrences during their development; for instance, that the backbone was divided as it is into vertebrae, because it happened to be broken owing to the contorted position of the foetus in the womb. In so saying he overlooked the fact that propogation implies a creative seed endowed with certain formative properties. Secondly, he neglected another fact, namely, that the parent animal pre-exists, not only in idea, but actually in time. For man is generated from man; and thus it is the possession of certain characters by the parent that determines the development of like characters in the child." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

 

[Flatland]

Yeah and Aristotle got pretty much every thing in science wrong.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Yeah and Aristotle got pretty much every thing in science wrong.

Let me guess: you think the Earth is flat and supported by turtles all the way down?

"Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On The Heavens, Book II, 350 B.C.

And do you also think that stars are shaped as a cube?

"Clearly then their [stars] mass will have the form of a sphere." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On The Heavens, Book II, 350 B.C.

 

[Blayz]

Yeah and Aristotle got pretty much every thing in science wrong.

He got quite a few things right, it was just mostly for entirely the wrong reasons.

"With regard to the shape of each star, the most reasonable view is that they are spherical. It has been shown that it is not in their nature to move themselves, and, since nature is no wanton or random creator, clearly she will have given things which possess no movement a shape particularly unadapted to movement. Such a shape is the sphere, since it possesses no instrument of movement...[observation of moon deleted]... One, then, of the heavenly bodies being spherical, clearly the rest will be spherical also. "

A stopped watch is right twice a day.
The Internet Classics Archive | On the Heavens by Aristotle

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Agonaces of Susa:
There are many transitional fossils and it's likely there more will be found in the future.