Evolution evidence?

Question

This is not flaming rather I am puzzled.

In evolution where are the transitional fossils of one species to another?
I know someone may point out a certain species of creature and point to another species of creature which may have some kind similarity and an evolutionist will say this creature evolved from this species to this other species. But there are no fossils to show the transitional changes. You have creature A and creature Z but no transitional creatures inbetween A to Z.

thank you almintaka yes bacteria and viruses can become resistant to medicines and such but they do not evolve into another species. Flu viruses alters it's proteins many times to infect it's hosts and resist body defences but it is still a flu virus.

Answer 1

No matter how much some people in certain "scientific" circles say that there are transitional fossils to prove evolution here are some FACTS. 1. The lowest level of the fossil strata, the Cambrian level, contains BOTH microscopic bacteria remains AND most MAIN bodies of biological Groups. 2. Scientists who tell us that Darwinian evolution (maco evolution) happens are really going against the Fact that there is no Known biological mechanism for Darwinian evolution(not micro evolution) to occur that has been observed much less repeatedly observed. It's as if Anthropology is against Biology. 3. The actual so called "missing links" ( bones and fragments) that are considered to be so, have only been seen by a handful of "experts" in the world. Most professors of paleontology have never seen the "links"and they are usually not allowed to be impartially examined till sometimes 30 or 50 years later. If you took all the so called "missing links" and put them together, they would probably fill a human size coffin. That is really nothing considering that there are supposed to be multi millions upon millions of prehuman ancestors in the Darwinian view. Every so often there are findings of living species that were thought to be extinct millions of years back such as the coleacanth fish. What is hardly known is that overall age for "modern man" overlaps the ages given for prehuminids!!! And that is taking the data that evolutionists themselves have given over the years. Someone get a camera and make a documentary out of the book "Bones of Contention"!!! Darwinian evolution is scientifically dead but some of it's proponents don't know it since they are really accepting it on Philosophical grounds.

Answer 2

Please read carefully what corvis_9 had to say. He is exactly correct! And his links are exactly right.

Fossils are an extremely rare occurence. An analogy I like to give is that it is like tracing the development of a child by looking at a photo album where many of the pictures are missing. You see the child at age 3 and again at age 8 ... from that you can only infer what the child looked like at 6 years old, but you don't assume that the child was never 6 years old at all. But if someday you discover a picture of the child at 6 years old, do you still assume the child was never 4 years old? And if you fill in those pictures too, you still have to look for the child at age 5-1/2. There will *always* be "missing links" in the record (the photo album), but that is not evidence that development never occurred.

Often, palentologists make mistakes (a fossil once thought to belong to a certain genus, upon discovery of new fossils turns out to be for a different genus) ... but the picture always gets clearer as the puzzle gets filled in, and always makes a stronger and stronger case for evolution.

Some species have sparse fossil records (for example chimpanzees, as they live in environments where fossils don't happen easily), while others are very well filled in (such as humans and horses).

In particular, click on the illustrations to the right of the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
there are 4 pages showing the growing fossil record for Hominim species as of 1850, 1900, 1950, and 2002 and you can see how the "transitional forms" keep getting filled in as more and more fossils are discovered.

Or see the evolution of the horse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Answer 3

Transitional fossils are a creationist myth. The argument sounds good to people who don't specialize in the study of any particular species of living thing.

I doubt it would be possible to divvy up the changes fine enough to satisfy someone who is dead set against evolution.

Fossilization of large animals is a rare event, there just aren't enough bones to track minute adaptive changes. You get what is essentially one frame of a particular movie of one type of creature changing into another over the eons per every thousand or so.

Any difference between widely spaced frames is just two different but similar species in the eyes of a hard line creationist. Who, of course, can offer no explanation as to why two different species of animals that have never been documented as a living creatures in recorded history should look nearly the same anyway.

Answer 4

1. Viruses and microbes evolve to become drug resistant. They do this by going through a series of random mutations. The non-resistant mutations are killed by medications. The resistant ones survive, and we have to invent new vaccines and antibiotics to treat them. They in turn keep undergoing random mutations, the resistant ones survive the new drugs, and so on. It's evolution in action.

2. Sickle Cell Sydrome. Native populations of some tropical regions have developed Sickle Cell Traits; this causes red blood cells to form a "sickle" shape when attacked by a malaria microbe. Once this happens, the sickled cell and attached microbe become visible to white blood cells, which attack and destroy both the sickled cell and the malaria microbe. In this way, people who have "Sickle Cell Traits" have evolved a higher level of resistance to Malaria than the native populations of other climates.

"Sickle Cell Syndrome" is a recessive trait that accompanies "Sickle Cell Traits". People who have the "Syndrome" tend to live short life spans because their red blood cells spontaneously sickle even when Malaria is not present. This causes "Sickle Cell Anemia" which, although its progress can be slowed by treatment, can eventually cause an early death.

The reason the "Sickle Cell Syndrome" recessive trait survives is because the number of people who die from the associated anemia is less than the number who would die from Malaria if they did not have "Sickle Cell Traits." IOW, the "Syndrome" is less harmful than the disease prevented by the dominant trait, so it remains in the gene pool.

As you can see, the evidence for evolution does not have to consist of fossils. It's all around us if we look hard enough.

Now, think what a billion years of change can do to a microbe, some of whose changes we can already measure in our own lifetimes?

Answer 5

I think, that this transition happens relatively fast, and all intermediate species just didn't make it..They were probably present for some time, until a steady and complete form has been developed.

Answer 6

Just a question of level of perception ! A prototype of everything around its past etc, is available deep within.
Difficult to explain or express, though. The struggle to understand all this is and will be so as long as, the perception is restricted to inputs through sense organs for knowledge, and acceptance of knowledge.

Answer 7

Mutation: white snakes, pink panthers and any other uncanny species are the evolutionary 'mistakes' that happen all around us. They just dont make it to spieciesdom bcos what chick would want them anyways!

Answer 8

For your edification, here is a website with a colossal list of known transitional fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Answer 9

where did you hear that?! a monkey is a "transitional" species. he lay between the one-celled organism and yourself, though you are closer to he than I.

Answer 10

There are none my friend. Science went from fact and observation to guessing and assumption.