Author Topic: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.  (Read 5576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12289
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2011, 03:40:53 AM »
What was a kind?

How was a kind different from a species, physically?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2011, 03:46:52 AM »
Contradictions graph.
The sky is "spread" on the Earth and is as hard as cast bronze[1].
Menstruating women are "unclean"[2].
Earth does not move[3].
Earth is a circle and "the heavens" are like a tent.

Any more questions about how the Bible is the "perfect" word of god?
 1. It's interesting to note how cast bronze was probably the hardest metal they had at the time... almost as if YHWH didn't know anything other than what the writers did.
 2. My apologies for this one; it's not a sin per se, but it makes a woman, and anyone who touches her, "unclean".
 3. I have like five more of these, if you'd like more confirmation that the Bible was written by idiots.
I read some of those proofs on that big red colorful poster thing, and some being numerical differences, other being metaphorical phrases in the bible being put up against literal ones. Also, I found a few that were reading the verses wrong, for example the one about man being made before animals or not. One verse says that animals were made and then humans were made and then the other verse says:

" 18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

From what I can tell, where it says "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky." they thought it meant that he made the animals at that time, where it could just be explaining that God has indeed made the animals. Multiple ones I found like that. However, there were some verses like I stated earlier that contain contradictions, ie: one verse says 300, the next 800, however, knowing that a few of these contradictions were simply not read correctly means that many of them probably suffered the same fate. I will look more into them, of course there are a lot in there.


Also, you must know by now, being a bible scholar, that many of those things you quoted are metaphors and similes. For example, the earth not moving was not said, it said the world was not moving, this could have translated world to the human race, the society and it's beliefs, etc.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2011, 03:48:24 AM »
What was a kind?

How was a kind different from a species, physically?
They are one in the same. Finches were one species and one kind of bird. Dogs were one species and one kind of mammal. Snakes were one species and one kind of reptile. etc.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12289
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2011, 03:49:38 AM »
They are one in the same. Finches were one species and one kind of bird. Dogs were one species and one kind of mammal. Snakes were one species and one kind of reptile. etc.

If they are synonyms, then why are you using "kind", which has an unclear meaning?

I mean, if you mean "species", and people are already using the word "species", then why introduce the word "kind"?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2011, 03:52:07 AM »
Also, you must know by now, being a bible scholar, that many of those things you quoted are metaphors and similes.

I'm no Bible scholar. However, I am smart and see that you're avoiding the issue, which is - they're lies. The sky most definitely is not as hard as cast bronze and the Earth is not a disc, for example. I see you "cleverly" avoided these.

For example, the earth not moving was not said, it said the world was not moving, this could have translated world to the human race, the society and it's beliefs, etc.

For one, your interpretation means that YHWH was lying, since the human race has moved a lot. But still:
http://bible.cc/psalms/104-5.htm
Try again.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1859
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2011, 03:55:17 AM »

I believe the variation of the kinds was indeed a form of natural selection, but not going from species to species but within the kinds.
In the beginning I believe God created all kinds of animals at once. Their genetic code held many diverse possibilities.
Noah's ark (the common children's story that you might refer to it as) held many different kinds of animals, these animals adapted to their environment after the flood, but not to evolve into different species, but outward into different kinds of animals within their species. For example, there might have been only one kind of dog on Noah's ark, that dog has since then adapted to give us all the different breeds of dogs we have today. There also might have been only one kind of horse, that soon adapted in it's different environments to other types of horses, for example a zebra. Evolution is not completely wrong, animals can change, but not into other species, darwins finches would support the biblical method of animals changing into other animals of their same kind. It even happens with humans, this is why we see so many variations of things like skin color.

As I said, unsubstantiated opinions. Maybe someone else can convince you to reconsider them, or at least your objections to the ToE.

Enjoy your time here, though a word of caution to a theist newcomer: this is a predominately atheist group of regulars. If you have a thin skin, it could be a rough ride.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2011, 04:07:05 AM »
They are one in the same. Finches were one species and one kind of bird. Dogs were one species and one kind of mammal. Snakes were one species and one kind of reptile. etc.

If they are synonyms, then why are you using "kind", which has an unclear meaning?

I mean, if you mean "species", and people are already using the word "species", then why introduce the word "kind"?
Sorry, my bad. Species then, species.

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2011, 04:09:02 AM »
Another proof is that nothing in the bible has been disproved. There has been no physical evidence to disprove anything stated in the bible, while this goes along with the whole god of gaps and that teapot guys statement, it is still something to write a book of prophecies only to have every one of them met, and to not have it able to be disproved at all.

Check out talkorigins.org if you haven't already.  Lots of good stuff there.  I'm just barely diving into it but, wow, such a wealth of knowledge!  In particular, check this page concerning Noah's flood/creationism in general and the fossil record : http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2011_03.html

As you can see, it doesn't quite match up with the bible.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12289
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2011, 04:18:47 AM »
Sorry, my bad. Species then, species.

Cool.  But I'm curious, Spinner...why did you use the word "kind" in the first place?  What was the reasoning behind your decision to use the word?

Because there must have been a reason of some sort.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2011, 10:15:31 AM »
A common analogy is a group of blindfolded people feeling an elephant, the one that feels the leg thinks its a tree, the one that feels the ear might think it is fabric, etc. We have different views as to why something could have happened, but different starting points.

And, as I find myself doing more and more often, I turn to Greta Christina for a response.  (Source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2008/09/24/blind-men-and-elephants-religion-and-science/ )

Quote from: Greta Christina
Here’s the thing. In some versions of the elephant fable, the blind men groping the elephant just fall to hopeless arguing with no resolution. In other versions, a wise man explains to them what’s really going on. And that does make it a good metaphor for religion. Either people trust what someone else tells them is true, or they squabble endlessly and even fall to blows, with no means of resolving their disagreements.

But here’s the interesting thing:

I have never seen a version of the fable in which the blind men start explaining to one another why they think the elephant is what they think it is[1]. I have never seen a version where the blind men say, “Hey, come over here! Follow my voice, and check this out — this is why I think it’s a snake!” (Or a tree trunk, or a rope, or whatever.)

And yet, that’s exactly how science works.

Yes, of course, if God existed, he would be immense and complex and difficult to perceive and understand.

And what — the physical universe isn’t?

The physical universe is both far, far larger and far, far weirder than we had any conception of 500 years ago, or indeed 100. Billions upon billions of galaxies all rushing apart from each other at blinding speed; everything made up of atoms that are mostly empty space; space that curves; continents that drift… I could go on and on. It’s way too big, way too complex, way too multi-faceted, for any one person to accurately comprehend.

And yet, the blind men are coming to a fair understanding of what an elephant is.
 1. Emphasis in the original
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2011, 11:52:19 AM »
Since all species that have ever lived in our world have been made of the the "organic materials" that make up lifesforms and because at minimum all land creatures are carbon-based life forms; would it not be possible for a being or set of beings with the knowledge how life works and ability to put a life sustaining form together to be able to engineer a species of its/their choosing?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2011, 12:42:19 PM »
Also, you must know by now, being a bible scholar, that many of those things you quoted are metaphors and similes. For example, the earth not moving was not said, it said the world was not moving, this could have translated world to the human race, the society and it's beliefs, etc.

wow, first utter ignorance about the science you try to attack and then getting out your magic decoder ring to tell us what your god "really" meant.

I do enjoy watching Christians making up excuses for their supposedly omnipotent god.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2011, 10:04:20 PM »
Since all species that have ever lived in our world have been made of the the "organic materials" that make up lifesforms and because at minimum all land creatures are carbon-based life forms; would it not be possible for a being or set of beings with the knowledge how life works and ability to put a life sustaining form together to be able to engineer a species of its/their choosing?
It is possible that the fairies living in your garden did it. What you need is to be able to find empirical, verifiable evidence that those fairies exist before you can credit or blame them for doing anything. Without that evidence, you are just dreaming about those fairies and attributing characterists you want to see in them, to them. It's called wishful thinking.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 10:06:20 PM by Lurking »

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2011, 10:17:52 PM »
I apologize if someone said this already.   

The missing link thing is a ridiculous idea.  The reason we call an extinct species a species to begin with is because we have good fossilization.  Evolution is continuous!  There are certain periods that fossilized well for various reasons, and so we as humans like to categorize things and call that a species.  The missing species are just the intermediates that didn't fossilize well.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2011, 10:18:43 PM »
If the world is only 6000 years old why are there ANY fossils?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2011, 01:23:40 AM »
I believe the variation of the kinds was indeed a form of natural selection, but not going from species to species but within the kinds.
In the beginning I believe God created all kinds of animals at once. Their genetic code held many diverse possibilities.
Noah's ark (the common children's story that you might refer to it as) held many different kinds of animals, these animals adapted to their environment after the flood, but not to evolve into different species, but outward into different kinds of animals within their species. For example, there might have been only one kind of dog on Noah's ark, that dog has since then adapted to give us all the different breeds of dogs we have today. There also might have been only one kind of horse, that soon adapted in it's different environments to other types of horses, for example a zebra. Evolution is not completely wrong, animals can change, but not into other species, darwins finches would support the biblical method of animals changing into other animals of their same kind. It even happens with humans, this is why we see so many variations of things like skin color.

Okay, we have another winner here folks. A christian who knows everything and can prove it, as long as you don't require, you know, actual proof.

We'll ignore that the various breeds of dog were created using the very same evolutionary process he rails against. Bigger, littler, and changed via humans forcing the issue rather than letting natural selection do it's thing. Hence we end up with Fox Terriers and those big frickin' swiss mountain dogs, and everything inbetween. But that's beside the point.

Sure, Noah's ark easily explains how kangaroos and other marsupials ended up only in Australia (not counting possums, which are so creep they shouldn't count anyway.) It is clear that once the ark settled on Mt. Arat or wherever, all the marsupials lined up and headed SE, looking for some distant and dreamy place to settle. And a few evolved to be smart enough to build rafts and s**t so they could get to an island and then go forth and multiply. But the smart ones died off because there was no advantage to being smart when looking for girls. Girl kangaroos don't like geeks.

If we had every single frickin' fossil lined up in a row, from the very first single celled organism clear up to Ron Paul, except we were missing one, creationists would be asking "Where is the transitional fossil, huh?" Since it's not evidence they want, but rather an excuse, their standards are low. The many millions of fossils we've found, layer after layer predictably inhabited by predictably describable species, that indeed transition into others, means nothing to someone who wants that to mean nothing. That the same fossils are found in Africa and South America exactly the way continental drift and evolution would predict means nothing to people who are really really hoping that the world is the way they want it to be.

The naive are good at both thinking they are right and not knowing they are wrong. They treat their made up crap as proof and actual evidence as deceptive. They don't look for chinks in the armor of science, they make them up, and then declare victory. They can do that because they think they are the only ones keeping score.

Spinner198, the amount of actual information you have on evolution is so wanting I'm amazed you know how to spell the word. You want so badly for the bible to be true that you are willing to overlook all contrary information, whether it comes from evolutionary theory, astronomy, geology or any other legitimate science. You believe this, you believe that, and treat those beliefs as fact, something no scientist would ever do. Science is after the truth, and by about the third day of the enlightenment it passed religion in the fact department and has improved on that record every single day since.

You've got nothing and you don't know it. At least you're consistent.

Edit: Added one word. Hope that doesn't put him over the edge.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2011, 01:41:50 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2011, 05:30:06 PM »
I don't want to go through every site google gives me and try and explain why it is false, give me a site, give me an article, or whatever, that proves transitional fossils exist and in as many numbers as the fossils we have thousands of. Even darwin said that transitional forms in the fossils record was the hardest evidence against his theory, he contributed it to the incompletion of the fossil record, however, our current fossil record is barely any better. The best so called transitional forms of apes to humans are fragments of bones, leading me to believe that there had not been actual fossilized evidence that has been unearthed that shows the entire form and body of the transitional form between man and ape.

Uh..fossils are hard to come by. Humans are apes. EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional specie. I am a transitional specie. There is no nor will there every be a fossil of a half iguana, half wombat. That is Ray Comfort level of idiocy.

Oh. By the way. You do understand that even if you (or anyone) proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory of evolution is wrong, the next step is not MY-GOD-DIDDIT!!! The next step would be to prove that there are no other possible natural explanations for diversity of life THEN prove that A god created life/diversity of life THEN prove that god is your particular god. The problem is, you just blindly assume the existence of not just a god but YOUR particular god THEN you shoot down anything that (you perceive) might possibly go against your beliefs even if it is more logical and requires less speculation/guesswork.

Quote
The old testament prophesied the coming of Jesus, before he was born. We have the dead sea scrolls to show that. Then not only did this one man be born in the exact place the bible prophesied, but he also fulfilled every single other prophecy made about him, along with performing supernatural miracles.
Wrong. You have vague statements that could be loosely interpreted to predict the coming of Jesus or loosely interpreted to almost anything the reader would want to.

Oh yeah, also....it's a book. It can be edited/changed to APPEAR prophetical.

Quote
Jesus is not only mentioned in the bible, he is in many pagan history books as well, where it tells of him still performing many miracles.
Citation needed. What exactly constitutes a "pagan history book"? Also, still. just. books. Books are not evidence even IF they mention cities that or historical people that exist/existed.  If a book tells me that George Washington was the first president of the United States, I think that is reasonable to accept especially if there are no books that claim someone else to be the first president. If a book tells me that George Washington was a six-legged lizardman from planet Spaghettio and he had a magic staff that could shoot lightning bolts, I don't find that reasonable and I need actual evidence.

Quote
Another proof is that nothing in the bible has been disproved. There has been no physical evidence to disprove anything stated in the bible, while this goes along with the whole god of gaps and that teapot guys statement, it is still something to write a book of prophecies only to have every one of them met, and to not have it able to be disproved at all.
Excuse me? Where is the garden of eden? Where is the ark of the covenant? Where is the ark for that matter? Where is the evidence for a global flood? Where is the evidence of a huge group of people leaving Egypt and crossing a desert? Again vague statements that can be wildly interpreted to represent any number of things are not prophecies. List some of these "prophecies" and I will disprove them.

Quote
Nobody would doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, I really don't know what you are implying with your lord of the rings comment, our history books don't contain text that states gandalf was born in new york or anything.
I doubt that Jesus existed or at least not as the bible describes him. No history books that I have seen mention Jesus much less anything about where he was born. I suppose if I was being home schooled by fundamentalist christian parents..... I don't doubt that, according to the bible, Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem but still....it is just a book.

Quote
I read some of those proofs on that big red colorful poster thing, and some being numerical differences, other being metaphorical phrases in the bible being put up against literal ones. Also, I found a few that were reading the verses wrong, for example the one about man being made before animals or not. One verse says that animals were made and then humans were made and then the other verse says:
Question: How does one decide what verses/parts of the bible are metaphorical and which are literal.

Answer: Any verse/part that contradicts another part - the least ridiculous part is literal and the most ridiculous is metaphorical. Any verse/part that I am uncomfortable with or don't like or is outrageously stupid is OBVIOUSLY metaphorical.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2011, 10:22:02 PM »
You know, one of my pet peeves is when creationists, and their parrots, spout off against the theory of evolution as though they have done any work at all to falsify it.  It's just pathetic, and beyond dishonest to come to a site, and begin demanding answers to a theory that you obviously know nothing about.

To the OP - you have a lot to learn about the ToE, and you should start from the elementary level, seriously.  It is really, really pathetic to see you stumbling around, parroting nonsense from creationist blowhards who have all of the tools and skills available, at any time, to completely falsify the ToE.  Now ask yourself, why hash;t this been done, if the theory is as bad as you claim?

Fuck, this gets old fast...

P.S.  Thanks to all the members who have taken the time to set the OP straight, even though it will not get through. 

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2011, 03:54:22 AM »
Seeing "even Darwin said..." makes me giggle.  It's such a silly statement and totally reveals THEIR mindset when they say it.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2011, 07:46:00 AM »
The Dunning Kruger effect is a symptom of a transitional fossil forming as we watch.
Brain tissue is rarely found in fossils, but some brain tissue is denser than others.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline free

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We didn't land on Mt Sinai, Mt Sinai landed on us!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2011, 08:28:20 AM »
The Dunning Kruger effect is a symptom of a transitional fossil forming as we watch.
Brain tissue is rarely found in fossils, but some brain tissue is denser than others.

How does the Dunning-Kruger effect work here?  I thought that was when under-performing/unskilled/incompetent people over estimate their abilities and vice-versa?

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2011, 10:12:47 AM »
The Dunning Kruger effect is a symptom of a transitional fossil forming as we watch.
Brain tissue is rarely found in fossils, but some brain tissue is denser than others.

How does the Dunning-Kruger effect work here?  I thought that was when under-performing/unskilled/incompetent people over estimate their abilities and vice-versa?

....your definition is correct, my metaphor?simile?analogy? was a stretch. 
It's possible we are not witnessing the transition of a mind being fossilised by faith (and thus incapable of recognising how wrong it is), more an ossifying perhaps?
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline kevinagain

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Darwins +8/-0
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #51 on: December 31, 2011, 10:39:56 AM »
why is the emphasis always on transitional fossils? if evolution occurred in the past it should be occurring in the present. so we should be able to discover missing links today, correct? that is, if evolutionary theory is correct.

when i was a kid, i used to wander around in the mangrove swamps in singapore harbor. the bushes had fish climbing in them that looked like this:



when i got close, the fish would leap out of the bushes into the water and swim away.

these fish are well adapted to an ecotone in a marine tidal marsh. there's no evidence that they're changing one way or the other, but they're exactly what evolutionary theory would predict to be found linking a fishy-thing with a froggy-thing in the fossil record.

why look for missing links in fossils? the theory predicts that they can be found today, and interestingly, they are.

Offline kevinagain

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Darwins +8/-0
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #52 on: December 31, 2011, 10:47:16 AM »
when i lived in california, i used to go to the beach to watch the missing links sunbathe on the sand. they were everywhere:



not a fossil in sight, just nothing but missing links.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #53 on: December 31, 2011, 12:28:14 PM »
Why are there none?

There are literally tens of thousands of transitional fossils for a range of animal species.

Quote
Oh, sorry, before anyone posts a link to a thread about lucy the pile of bone fragments, let me rephrase.

Lucy is one out of over a dozen examples of transitional forms of hominids in the fossil record of human evolution, Lucy is not really that big of a deal anymore other than her classification within that line.  Many of the fossil examples for hominid evolution number in the hundreds and is not limited to simply one or two pieces.  However, even if it were, that wouldn't falsify the notion of it being a transitional fossil.

Quote
Why are there thousands of fossils of animal A and animal B, yet the apparent form in between animals A and B isn't in the fossil record at all?

The only way you could come to this conclusion is to be totally and completely ignorant of basic science.

Horses: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

Hominids: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Whales: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Fish to tetrapods: http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/tetrapods.htm

Dinosaurs to birds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Synapsids to mammals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

and I could keep doing this all day long, for everything from plants, to fish, to animals, and everything in between.

The only way you would have reached this position is to be entirely clueless about modern science, unnecessarily incredulous to everything in modern science, or to be misinformed by dogmatic pseudo-scientific  nonsense.  The only way you would ever be able to move beyond this position is to stop playing the game of denial and expecting a transitional fossil to be defined in a way that you think it should, rather than how it might be defined in science and as a legitimate reference to the evolution of life.  More over, there never will be a point where we will have every single transitional fossil for every single life form on earth, there might even be instances where we will never find transitional fossils for certain life forms simply because of the rarity of the process of fossilization in combination with what properties are required in order for something to be fossilized.  Such as the case with pre-cambrian fossils, where creationist assert that there are no pre-cambrian multicellular life forms ( we've found otherwise ) because we find no fossilized remains, which even before we found actual fossilized pre-camrbian life we were discovering all kinds of tracks left in mud turned stone of large multicellular life forms wiggling, walking, crawling, across shallow seas, rivers, ponds, and swamps.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm

http://apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2010/02/something-was-crawling-on-precambrian.html

On the note of hominid evolution, what we have uncovered about hominid evolution is absolutely amazing, in fact we are coming to a point because of the extreme amount of research into the subject that we actually know far more about hominid evolution than we do most other animals.  So much so that it doesn't leave any room to credibly reject the results or incredulous dismiss the evidence.  There are also other kinds of predictive and observable evidence to support evolutionary mechanisms beyond transitional fossil species, one of the most amazing in my opinion is the fact that we have discovered the exact fusion between two chromosomes that separate us from our closest living 'cousin' who we shared an ancestor with.

Chimps have 24 chromosomes for a pair of 48, modern humans have 23 chromosomes for a pair of 46.  If you compared our chromosomes to the chromosomes of chimps, you will find that 22 of our chromosomes coincide with 22 chromsomes of a chimp.  Leaving one on the human side that does not match and 2 on the chimp side that do not match.  However, if you take the 2 extra chimp chromosomes and line them up next to the extra human chromosome, you can find the exact point where they have fused together.  So really, the same chromosomes are present in both species.  This is an outstandingly powerful form of evidence for evolutionary mechanisms.

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

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #54 on: December 31, 2011, 02:54:33 PM »

I believe the variation of the kinds was indeed a form of natural selection, but not going from species to species but within the kinds. ...
...
Noah's ark (the common children's story that you might refer to it as) held many different kinds of animals, these animals adapted to their environment after the flood, but not to evolve into different species, but outward into different kinds of animals within their species. For example, there might have been only one kind of dog on Noah's ark, that dog has since then adapted to give us all the different breeds of dogs we have today. There also might have been only one kind of horse, that soon adapted in it's different environments to other types of horses, for example a zebra. ...

Can I ask you to explain something? You're suggesting that the original "horses" from Noah's Ark "adapted"  into all the current varieties of equine creatures, such as modern horses, donkeys, zebras, etc, (and presumably extinct equines like the quagga), right? 

Similarly, would you hold it possible that one pair of "cats" gave rise to all the "feline" animals, from lions and tigers to lynxes and domestic cats?

Let's leave aside the fact that many of these animals are, in fact, different species.  Do you believe that Noah's Flood occurred within the last few thousand years? If so, do you realize the rate of "adaptation" you're suggesting? If you believe some proto-horse could evolve into creatures as distinct as zebras and Mongolian wild asses, or that a proto-cat could give rise both to lions and housecats - all in that short span of time - then you're describing a process that is exponentially  faster and presumably vastly more powerful than Darwinian evolution! After all, biologists believe that the horse family has been evolving for 45 to 55 million years; yet you see it all happening in less than 10,000!

It's ironic - in denying evolution, you're actually forced to posit some sort of super-evolution (even if you avoid using the term), which then somehow stops at a "species" barrier, which you have yet to clearly define. Do you have any evidence for this amazing process of rapid "adaptation" in the wild?  We should be able to see its effects pretty easily if it works this quickly. What exactly causes it to stop where you believe it does?

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #55 on: December 31, 2011, 09:58:23 PM »
Even if there are a supposed few thousand transitional fossils, there are millions of fossils in the record. If a rat evolved into a bat for some reason, there would need to be about as many fossils of the rat to bat animal as there would be of a rat and of a bat. Otherwise the fossil record wouldn't make sense.

Just using rat-to-bat example, if that were true, did a rat just sprout full wings and know how to instinctively fly?  Because if not, think about how awkward it would be to be a rat who kind of has front legs but they are kind of evolving into wings.  It would have a hard time running around on the ground and feeding itself.  Yep, if evolution were true, we probably wouldn't have bats or rats, because the transition would have made the rats easy pickin's for predators and they would have become the food of choice because they couldn't run as fast as they could because of those transitioning front legs/wings.  And just how many would have had to been born at one time with the transitional features in order to assure that those transitions were passed on to the next generation?  There's just to many problems with this for me to have enough faith to believe in evolution.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2011, 10:01:37 PM »
Even if there are a supposed few thousand transitional fossils, there are millions of fossils in the record. If a rat evolved into a bat for some reason, there would need to be about as many fossils of the rat to bat animal as there would be of a rat and of a bat. Otherwise the fossil record wouldn't make sense.

Just using rat-to-bat example, if that were true, did a rat just sprout full wings and know how to instinctively fly?  Because if not, think about how awkward it would be to be a rat who kind of has front legs but they are kind of evolving into wings.  It would have a hard time running around on the ground and feeding itself.  Yep, if evolution were true, we probably wouldn't have bats or rats, because the transition would have made the rats easy pickin's for predators and they would have become the food of choice because they couldn't run as fast as they could because of those transitioning front legs/wings.  And just how many would have had to been born at one time with the transitional features in order to assure that those transitions were passed on to the next generation?  There's just to many problems with this for me to have enough faith to believe in evolution.

If you're gonna take a wild-assed guess at how bats evolved and then laugh at how crazy it sounds, consider the source.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline gzusfreke

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Darwins +7/-38
  • "Are you casting asparagus on my cooking?"-Curly
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2011, 10:03:09 PM »
The bible is real, I have one sitting right here on my desk. Does this mean I win?

A great quote!
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin