Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By exchemist

Thread: If every fossil is a transitional fossil, why are specific fossils labeled: "Transitional"?

  1. #1 If every fossil is a transitional fossil, why are specific fossils labeled: "Transitional"? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    If all fossils are transitional fossils, why do creationists say:

    1)"Where are the transitional fossils? No, they simply don't exist!"
    2)"The lack of transitional fossils is the biggest flaw in the evolution theory!"
    3)"Evolution is only a theory. It cant be backed up by fossil evidence!"
    4)"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? 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 the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    So, i get that every fossil is a transitional fossil, but wikipedia makes things a little more specific.
    Wikipedia:
    The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.
    Since the website has about 150, does it make creationists wrong?

    Also, since there are billions of fossils found, where probably millions of the fossils would be transitional, and out of these millions, 150 are found, wouldn't they be sort of... too little?

    wikipedia:
    This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.

    i get that the list is incomplete, but according to the interviews with various fossil museums' scientists, they don't find any at all at any of their excavation sites.


    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    [SIZE=2]If all fossils are transitional fossils, why do creationists say:

    1)"Where are the transitional fossils? No, they simply don't exist!"
    2)"The lack of transitional fossils is the biggest flaw in the evolution theory!"
    3)"Evolution is only a theory. It cant be backed up by fossil evidence!"
    evidence-free assertions
    it's in the nature of reproduction that individual beings are transitional between the parent and child generation
    once you have children you will be transitional between your parents and your children

    when scientists talk about transitional forms they mean fossil finds that possibly throw some light on HOW the gap between 2 forms that until then had shown a hiatus in a continuum could be bridged - e.g. Tiktaalik may not have been the actual transitional form between lobe-finned fishes and amphibians (in fact, such a proof is not easy to come by), but it shows what that transitional form may have looked like + explains the processes involved in that transition

    creationists merely point out the truism that no-one can find a parent-child chain going back 300 million years or more - but then again, that's not what transitional forms mean in an evolutionary context


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    so i guess the problem here is the word "transitional" used in different contexts.

    but still, what the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?

    QN: Why don't you find human fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Humans evolved after dinosaurs went extinct.
    Creationist: Because of the flood. Different creatures' bloating bodies causes differential suspension, causing humans ones to float on top.

    QN: Why are there some modern animals' fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Because according to the suitability conditions, metamorphic changes in the species are not required.
    Creationist: Because all species were created in 7 days, and these animals exist with dinosaurs.

    Where are the human fossils?
    Under such conditions, human bodies would probably be thrown around like flotsam and would tend to be destroyed by the agitation and abrasion.
    but i also spot them using probably, and other 'possible' words, like 'could', and 'would'.


    basically,

    What the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    so i guess the problem here is the word "transitional" used in different contexts.

    but still, what the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?

    QN: Why don't you find human fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Humans evolved after dinosaurs went extinct.
    Creationist: Because of the flood. Different creatures' bloating bodies causes differential suspension, causing humans ones to float on top.

    QN: Why are there some modern animals' fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Because according to the suitability conditions, metamorphic changes in the species are not required.
    Creationist: Because all species were created in 7 days, and these animals exist with dinosaurs.

    Where are the human fossils?
    Under such conditions, human bodies would probably be thrown around like flotsam and would tend to be destroyed by the agitation and abrasion.
    but i also spot them using probably, and other 'possible' words, like 'could', and 'would'.


    basically,

    What the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?
    There is a world of difference between "not changing" and "being created". Consider the following:-

    To say a creature has not changed - or very little - over millions of years, simply means just that. Fossils from different periods look the same, so the conclusion is drawn that not much change has occurred, during that time interval. But, quite obviously, this apparently unchanging creature itself appears for the first time at some point in the fossil record. So before that, it was not there. According to evolution, it will have evolved from some earlier form of creature.

    No creation involved.

    Try to understand that selection pressures on creatures can be expected to vary over geological time. It is this pressure that favours and locks in advantageous changes, i.e. drives change. So the rates of change can vary over time from rapid to extremely slow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    but still, what the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?
    Firstly, those species which "did not evolve" are only apparently similar to their ancient ancestors. In fact they have evolved in many details: both physical and genetic.

    Also, those species which "did not evolve" from some ancient ancient did evolve prior to that in order to get to the form where they were able to be relatively stable for a long period.

    Let's rephrase the question slightly:
    what the difference between creation, and science
    Rigorous analysis of ALL the evidence. Not cherry-picking some ("oh look, these species didn't evolve") and ignoring other (geological evidence shows there was no global flood).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    eh?

    All species by definition hold standard morphology. Which human living today, unless s/he is not sick or deformed, has large brow ridges? This has been the case for many thousands of years.

    So transitional fossil, using us again as an example, is the Omo remains. It literally is a fusion/link between homo sapiens and heidelbergensis, since our traits (rounded braincase) can be seen together with a large brow ridge and archaic features.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    so i guess the problem here is the word "transitional" used in different contexts.

    but still, what the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?

    QN: Why don't you find human fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Humans evolved after dinosaurs went extinct.
    Creationist: Because of the flood. Different creatures' bloating bodies causes differential suspension, causing humans ones to float on top.

    QN: Why are there some modern animals' fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Because according to the suitability conditions, metamorphic changes in the species are not required.
    Creationist: Because all species were created in 7 days, and these animals exist with dinosaurs.

    Where are the human fossils?
    Under such conditions, human bodies would probably be thrown around like flotsam and would tend to be destroyed by the agitation and abrasion.
    but i also spot them using probably, and other 'possible' words, like 'could', and 'would'.


    basically,

    What the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?
    Er... because it still meets the needs of its niche, that's why. You DO understand evolutionary theory, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Also, why did God make humans look and act like apes? for what purpose did he NEED to do this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by sarnamluvu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RamenNoodles View Post
    so i guess the problem here is the word "transitional" used in different contexts.

    but still, what the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?

    QN: Why don't you find human fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Humans evolved after dinosaurs went extinct.
    Creationist: Because of the flood. Different creatures' bloating bodies causes differential suspension, causing humans ones to float on top.

    QN: Why are there some modern animals' fossils in dinosaur strata?
    Evolutionist: Because according to the suitability conditions, metamorphic changes in the species are not required.
    Creationist: Because all species were created in 7 days, and these animals exist with dinosaurs.

    Where are the human fossils?
    Under such conditions, human bodies would probably be thrown around like flotsam and would tend to be destroyed by the agitation and abrasion.
    but i also spot them using probably, and other 'possible' words, like 'could', and 'would'.


    basically,

    What the difference between creation, and "not all species are required to evolve"?
    Er... because it still meets the needs of its niche, that's why. You DO understand evolutionary theory, right?
    You're a bit late to the party, mate.

    Also, you might like to know the background to this is that the poster of the OP is a young person growing up in a creationist community and trying to fight the relentless propaganda being shoved at him or her by the family and others. We are trying to help support the poster in difficult circumstances. So we try to be as kind and understanding as possible.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Has transitional animal fossils been found? How many? And are the real or frauds? Links please :D
    By RamenNoodles in forum Anthropology, Archaeology and Palaeontology
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: September 9th, 2013, 11:47 PM
  2. Transitional species
    By SeaScene in forum Biology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: April 27th, 2012, 06:29 AM
  3. Transitional and Oppositional States Account for All
    By questor in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 1st, 2011, 03:25 PM
  4. Fossils and fossil replicas for sale!!!
    By gottspieler in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 06:20 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 18th, 2009, 09:17 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •