Thread: Transitional fossils?

Hi everyone,

I was talking to a guy few days ago about transitional fossils.
Here is what he told me:

"I'm not buying evolution until they show me the transitional fossils. Even Darwin said that if the transitional fossils were never found, his theory would fall apart. To this day evolutionists have not found any, all that is shown in school textbooks are misleading examples of transitional fossils.

Such as the Archaeopteryx and the Tiktaalik."


I told him i occasionally read stuff on this forum,and he asked me to give him proof of "real transitional fossils".
Since i have don't have enough knowledge,i would like you to tell me few examples of transitional fossils?

Every comment is welcome.

It isn't clear what he is looking for. Every species is transitional between what used to be and what will be. Therefore every fossil (and every living species) is an example of a transition.

I assume he is asking for this because he knows it is meaningless and therefore can't be satisfied. Why not ask him to disprove the many observed examples of speciation, instead.

Originally Posted by Strange

It isn't clear what he is looking for. Every species is transitional between what used to be and what will be. Therefore every fossil (and every living species) is an example of a transition.

I assume he is asking for this because he knows it is meaningless and therefore can't be satisfied. Why not ask him to disprove the many observed examples of speciation, instead.

Thanks for help
I will try to get in contact with him,and tell him that

exactly - what would satisfy him to be a "real" transitional fossil ?

if tiktaalik isn't, what is ?

have a look at the following article - it clearly shows that from an understanding of how evolution works and combining this with knowledge of geology Neil Shubin went to look for the transitional form that he knew had to exist, and guess what ? he found it !

if that is not sufficient proof of how even historical sciences can make prediction i don't know what is

This Fish Crawled Out of the Water…and Into Creationists' Nightmares

Originally Posted by marnixR

exactly - what would satisfy him to be a "real" transitional fossil ?

if tiktaalik isn't, what is ?

have a look at the following article - it clearly shows that from an understanding of how evolution works and combining this with knowledge of geology Neil Shubin went to look for the transitional form that he knew had to exist, and guess what ? he found it !

if that is not sufficient proof of how even historical sciences can make prediction i don't know what is

This Fish Crawled Out of the Water…and Into Creationists' Nightmares

Great article,and very informative too.
I send him link of it.

Part of the problem is that people think that species are completely distinct things, like different models of cars, for example. But in reality, there is often a continuous gradation. The definition of what makes a species is basically a human invention and often arbitrary.

This page has a good overview of the difficulty of defining species:
Observed Instances of Speciation
(and some examples of speciation)

If we can't clearly define a species, how can we define a transition.

The other thing is that fossilisation is rare and finding fossils is rare. So we only have a few samples of many species. So asking for fossils of every stage of development in a series of species is asking for the impossible.

Originally Posted by Strange

Part of the problem is that people think that species are completely distinct things, like different models of cars, for example. But in reality, there is often a continuous gradation. The definition of what makes a species is basically a human invention and often arbitrary.

This page has a good overview of the difficulty of defining species:
Observed Instances of Speciation
(and some examples of speciation)

If we can't clearly define a species, how can we define a transition.

The other thing is that fossilisation is rare and finding fossils is rare. So we only have a few samples of many species. So asking for fossils of every stage of development in a series of species is asking for the impossible.

That jerk in the trash can needs to read this.

In the palaeontology portions of my degree course we took a rather jaundiced view of vertebrate palaeontology. We thought it was rather pointless, offering nothing of value, nothing of any practical use. In contrast invertebrate palaeontology was a much richer field, revealing the character of entire ecologies, delivering precise relative age dating, and providing abundant data on evolutionary rates and trends. Transitional fossils there are abundant, geographically and temporally. Creationists, however, seem focused on vertebrates in general and humans in particular. How boring!

Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex

Originally Posted by marnixR

exactly - what would satisfy him to be a "real" transitional fossil ?

if tiktaalik isn't, what is ?

have a look at the following article - it clearly shows that from an understanding of how evolution works and combining this with knowledge of geology Neil Shubin went to look for the transitional form that he knew had to exist, and guess what ? he found it !

if that is not sufficient proof of how even historical sciences can make prediction i don't know what is

This Fish Crawled Out of the Water…and Into Creationists' Nightmares

Great article,and very informative too.
I send him link of it.

I can recommend a few more to whet your appetite.

Tiktaalik roseae has already been covered. There are plenty more:

- Ambulocetus natans - the name means 'walking swimming whale'. It's an early whale, with hands and feet.
- Pezosiren portelli - a sirenian, much like a dugong or manatee. Only thing is, again, it has hands and feet.
- Odontochelys semitestacea - an ancient turtle that not only had half a shell (bottom half only), it also had teeth. No living turtles have teeth.
- Archaeopteryx lithographica - perhaps the most famous transitional fossil. Pure reptile? No. Pure bird? No, definitely not.

And they're just for starters.

The important thing to remember is that the theory of evolution is not based on the fossil record. The fossil record supports but does not prove evolution. It suports it because it is the record of what animals appeared on the earth, period.
Evolution is proved by 4 basic, barn yard, observations: There has been zero cases of observed spontaneous generation. No living thing has ever been observed to "poof" into existence. Life comes from life. Like begets like. Cats have kittens etc. Off spring resemble their parents. This process is not perfect. Off spring are generally not carbon copies of their parents. Sometimes freaks happen. THere is an element of randomness to the process. And finally not all animals are equally hardy or reproductively successful. If your grandfather inherited a characteristic that prevented him reproducing , chances are veery good you will not pass that characteristic on to your offspring.

This is what evolution is based on and this is what needs to be proved false to disprove evolution. The fossil record is not capable of disproving evolution, it can only offer greater or lesser support for it. Any alternative theory must first prove spontaneous genration to be possible, which our observations indicate is not.

ANy other arguements against evolution that do not address these primary issues are just noise and confusion trying to obscure the point. the theory of eveolution is as near to being inassailable as any thng in science can be.

Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex

Hi everyone,

I was talking to a guy few days ago about transitional fossils.
Here is what he told me:

"I'm not buying evolution until they show me the transitional fossils. Even Darwin said that if the transitional fossils were never found, his theory would fall apart. To this day evolutionists have not found any, all that is shown in school textbooks are misleading examples of transitional fossils.

Such as the Archaeopteryx and the Tiktaalik."

You may tell him that sudden new species are not a result of Evolution per se. These "new species usually appear after global disasters, which require thousands of years to stabilize and establish a permanent (adapted) population, which may well have devloped major differences from their ancestors. Australia is a perfect example of what happens to species when reoved from their ancestor species long enough. IMO, the Duck-Billed Platypus is a perfect example of a transitional species, which has not quite decided yet what it wants to be. I don't think there is any other species "of it's kind" like it. Maybe leftovers from all the other species?

Humans is another species which did not "slowly evolve by adaptation". We are the result of a lucky genetic mutation.

This may be of interest to your friend.

Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes

Chromosome fusion

This may sound a little silly, but think. Scripture clearly states that all animals were made after their own kind. So when we run across a heretofore unknown species, where do you fit those species in the Bible. Species which are not "after their kind", but a hodgepodge of several kinds?

Perhaps nature was experimenting with several different natural "advantages" at once. Seems that the experiment with Platypus resulted in a functional (but not very successful) species. There are not many platypuses. I doubt if Noah had one (or two) on his Ark.

I told him i occasionally read stuff on this forum,and he asked me to give him proof of "real transitional fossils".
Since i have don't have enough knowledge,i would like you to tell me few examples of transitional fossils?
Every comment is welcome.

Have him join and ask any and all questions. This is a Humanist Forum, no one gets booted except for bad behavior.

T.R. Have you friend watch this movie about a highly sophisticated intelligence which EVOLVED FROM A SLUG.

Video: Kings of Camouflage | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video

Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus Rex

Hi everyone,
I was talking to a guy few days ago about transitional fossils.
Here is what he told me:
"I'm not buying evolution until they show me the transitional fossils. Even Darwin said that if the transitional fossils were never found, his theory would fall apart. To this day evolutionists have not found any, all that is shown in school textbooks are misleading examples of transitional fossils.
Such as the Archaeopteryx and the Tiktaalik."
I told him i occasionally read stuff on this forum,and he asked me to give him proof of "real transitional fossils".
Since i have don't have enough knowledge,i would like you to tell me few examples of transitional fossils?
Every comment is welcome.

You were answered well in that every fossil is transitional.
And probably most every extant living thing is also transitional, or doomed.
We're wiping them out pretty fast.

and who are the other 4 fellows do you suppose?
God's mistakes?
And this is the short list