How Does Evolution Justify The Transitional Forms Theory In The Absence Of Palaeontological Evidence?

Question

The Date: June 23, 2000.
The Media: The New York Times
The Headline: "Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds' Evolution."

This article was about a bird which was recently unearthed in the Middle East. "It has been discovered that the fossil, which was unearthed in the Middle East and estimated to have lived 220 million years ago, is covered with feathers, has a wishbone just like Archaeopteryx and modern birds do, and there are hollow shafts in its feathers. THIS INVALIDATES THE CLAIMS THAT ARCHAEOPTERYX IS THE ANCESTOR OF BIRDS, because the fossil discovered is 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. This means that A REAL BIRD WITH ALL ITS CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES ALREADY EXISTED 75 MILLION YEARS BEFORE THE CREATURE WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO BE THE ANCESTOR OF BIRDS."

The world of palaeontology has had to face the plain truth that there is not even a single fossil which can provide evidence for evolution and the “theory of the transitional forms”.

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/

Answer 1

I think the word YET needs to enter your train of thought. 10 years ago there was no evidence to suggest that the Archaeopteryx wasn't the ancestor of all birds, now we know more and find that there is something that pre-dates it. In 20 years time there might well be eveidence to pre-date it yet further.

Who knows what will turn up? Do you think this find discredits the theory of evolution or is it just the established theory of the evolution of birds that, until more evidence is discovered, has been undermined?

Answer 2

Huh?
This is going to disprove evolution?
First of all, you basically admitted creationism is not true, so I am assuming that you follow intelligent design"
No one is likely going to disprove Archaeopteryx as a transtitonal fossil. Sure it may not be the ancestor of all birds, but no one (not any credible scientists anyway) ever claimed that the Archaeopteryx was the most ancestorial bird ever. Evolution is not weakened at all based on this report. People only believe that the Archaeopteryx to be ancestoral bird of all other birds for whatever reason. Besides, we have much more evolution proof then simply the Archaeopteryx fossils, like the Tiktaalik.

Answer 3

Ok, so then this is the ancestor of birds, and not archeopteryx. Who does this totally invalidate evolution? I missed that part I think. The wonderful thing about scientists is that they realize they don't know everything. They even prove themselves wrong, sometimes. You obviously subscribe more to the theologian attitude, where you can't possibly be wrong because god says so. Sorry, science doesn't work that way, buddy.

Answer 4

Are human beings conscious that non secular reasons of existence are theories? And awful ones at that? If there's a "God" who created each and everything, i do no longer ideas. What i locate no longer situation-free to swallow is that HE/SHE/|IT made all this and then went off to play Godgolf or something! the worldwide's Catholics (or a number of them) have confidence that God nudges the Cardinals to compliment the subsequent Pope.i ought to care much less what they have confidence as long as they shop on the ideal street. the ideal street is to try for a robust existence for each individual, meals, medical care, protection rigidity stand down, and the pursuit of expertise. No inquisitions, no protection rigidity rule, no ban on opinion or speech. yet people are aggressive, So i seem on the non secular types as a undertaking which will sharpen my wits.

Answer 5

was that all? you're just going to insult me for proving you wrong? wow! i'd hoped you would come back with some FACTS instead of whining for looking like a stupid ninny.
you're sooo impressive!
ha!

oh, and that's why it's a THEORY. ALLEGED. not THIS IS A FACT bullsh*t, like what you're tossing out. besides, even IF you're not just tossing around crap again, it may not disprove the theory, they just think it might at this point. science searches for truth, and often finds it, unlike you. who probably couldn't find your own rear end with two hands.

Answer 6

Ok send me your proof, I have many friends that are palaentologists and they will be able to direct you to respected scientific papers - oh but wait will you be able to understand them since parts of it is in latin and written technically for a reader that has understanding of the subject.

Nope didnt think so.

Im still waiting for teh proof, tick tock tick tock!

Answer 7

You are asking the wrong questions in here-go to geniuses dot com or whatever.

Answer 8

You are so close..........

Like I've said before "scientist work with more assumptions than creationists"

I would only pray that people see if before it is too late.

Answer 9

So?

Even if evolution was totally wrong, creationism would still be nonsense.