Evolutionist, where is there evidence of transitional species?

Question

I know that sceintist haven't discovered any clear cut evidence of transitional species. Where is the evidence you rely on that explains the missing transition between animals? Also if there were millions of neoandrathals on earth why can't we find any fossils of them? Also why didn't the neoandrathals survive via natural selection instead of chimps, apes, etc? They seem like they would have the natural advantage over such animals.

Please only serious/eductated replies. Give me some evidence, please don't just go off saying ignorant things. I honestly am seeking someone to shed some light on these areas of the evolution theory.

Please don't spin the question, I didn't say I believed in creationism or not, I just want to get some aspects straightened up because I haven't studied evoultion in depth.

Also let me add, that some of these sources are based on assumptions, please do not give me such. That isn't evidence, if you believed that there is no creator, then you assume there is no God and that ther must be a rational link between these animals. Please give me an objective source. Could it be possible that are genetic code is made up of a vast variety of traits? Through reproduction we exchange different probablities of inheriting these? (Over many and many of generations)
I'm not here to prove creationism, because in fact creationism is based on the asumption that there is a God who create all things. I'm just trying to get some facts straightened up because I have a harder time understanding how evolution is anything more then a theory.

Do you believe that since the actual homo-sapean has been on earth, that they have had the ability of communication? I think that they have since from a historic record it implies to be true. (Cave paintings, stories, etc)
As to the question of God's days, I believe they are relative to 24hrs. If God created life (Adam + Eve) he communicated to them as the did to him. So on that basis man knew how to comunicate with each other. Evolution does contradict the Bible, maybe not spirituality but the Christian Bible (King James Version) it does. Also I have no sources of actuall fossils being found of this "missing link." The claimed neandrthal skull could be nothing more then a mutated human skull. You have to understand that religion is faith based that you believe in a God and that his word (scripture) is true. A evolutionist has faith in naturalism and believes that the universe we live in has a rational order to it, which I disagree with. Science is still limited so we base assume.

The jehova witness website miss quoted the bible, how can I trust it? Haha, in Genesis it clearly states they God made the heavens and the earth within the six days. The earth didn't exist before God created it accourding to the Bible. The actual time that was meant is open for debate, however God could clearly communicate with man so there shouldn't be any screw up there. I'm not saying that a Christain can't believe in science. I'm just saying the theory of evolution contradicts the story told in Genesis.

Answer 1

I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking about evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

The fact is there is nothing here that was not created, planned with a purpose in mind. Is there anything on this earth- not natural that just came together on its own. You can put pieces of 'stuff' in a box and put whatever conditions you choose and without a purpose and planning for that purpose, you won't get anything useful. I have yet to see anyone show matter being created out of nothing, or one species evolving into another or any proof of that happening. this world works in a clockwork type order , there is precision and purpose to everything you see - you cannot have purpose without a plan and you cannot have a plan without a planner- there is nothing that can disprove intelligent design. Period!

Answer 2

Have you heard about the Special Issue of the "AWAKE!" magazine of September 2006 (in English)? The contents are:

"Is There A CREATOR?"
~ Whom Should You Believe?
~ What Does Nature Teach?
~ Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?
~ An Interview With a Biochemist
~ Is Evolution a Fact?
~ Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?
~ Why We Believe in a Creator
~ Intriguing Patterns in Plants
~ How Can I Defend My Belief in Creation?
~ Does It Matter What You Believe?
~ Watching the World (short news items):
~~ Giant Squid Photographed
~~ "Dinosaurs Ate Grass"
~~ How Do Bees Fly?
~~ Singing Mice
~~ and more ...

"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible." quoted from
"The Daily Telegraph", London - May 26, 1999

On-line articles on this subject that I highly recommend are:

LIFE--A Product of Design :
~ Copying Life's Marvelous Designs
~ Learning from Designs in Nature
~ The Great Designer Revealed
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/1/22/article_01.htm

Can Science Help You to Find God? :
~ Is It Unscientific to Believe in God?
~ Why Some Scientists Believe in God
~ Where Can You Find Answers?
~ In Their Own Words
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm

Reconciling Science and Religion:
~ An Enduring Quest :
~ ~ Accept the limits
~ ~ Let the known facts speak
~ ~ The Creative Days—24 Hours Each?
~ ~ Faith, not credulity
~ ~ Respect science; acknowledge belief.
~ Has Science Taken the Moral High Ground?
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2002/6/8/article_01.htm

Answer 3

EVERYTHING is a transitional species between modern life and Precambrian life.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

Let me turn your question around, if (as many claim here) Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

Go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution and find out for yourself.

Answer 4

Are you looking for “transition fossils”? How would we recognize them? Some grotesquely deformed animal? No, fact is all fossils are “transition” fossils. We, someday, will be “transition” fossils. Genetics are fast, evolution is very slow. Some modern day animals, like the horseshoe crab, haven’t changed in thousands of years. Why? No need to.

Many anti-evolutionists talk about the “fossil records” without truly understanding what fossils really are. A fossil is an impression or cast of what once was there. It is composed of its host rock. How much detail is preserved depends on the grain size and matrix of the rock. Plus many more factors. Do you know how hard it is to produce a fossil? Conditions have to be exact. Soft tissue impressions are exceedingly difficult to preserve. But, exquisite specimens do exist. Is there a complete fossil record? Yes, but we haven’t found all of it yet.

Evolution, itself, is evolving. Someone publishes a scientific article on say, brachipod succession, and someone else will question their conclusions and/or try to disprove them. This is science.

You are evolving. You are a product of your parents, not quite like either one of them, but different. Different form your children. Very different from your ancestors 1,000, 2,000, 10,000 years ago.

I am a geologist, but nothing I say here will convince you one way or the other. The answer is not that simple. It cannot be explained convincingly in Yahoo questions. I recommend you go to your local college and take some courses in Palentology, Paleobotany, Historical Geology, and even Physical Geology. You will then be able to make up your own mind.

For the literal creationists out there - If God created the world in seven 24 hour days, then riddle me this - Time was not measurable until day number four. How were days one, two and three measured?

Answer 5

I guess I'm curious why you think we haven't found neandertal fossils. There are, in fact, a fairly large number of such.

One problem is the definition of 'transitional fossil'. many creationists seem to think a transitional is half way between two other species. This is not the way it happens in practice. More specifically, different parts of the anatomy will change at different rates, sometimes even changing in another direction before moving to the endpoint. So there is no half-way species between a cat and a dog. However, there is an ancestral species that combines different aspects of both dogs and cats (as well as other carnivores). This ancestral species was adapted to its environment and there would have been little indication at its time that it was changing at all.

As for why neandertals didn't survive: they were a subspecies that was more adapted to the colder environments of ice age Europe. They also seem to not have been as inventive as modern humans so when the interglacial came, the modern humans took over. Neandertal were not in competition with chimps, which were in african forests. Remember that it isn't some mythical 'advantage' that is needed, it is adaptation to the particular environment they are in.

Another problem that many creationists have is that when a transitional form *is* found, they claim that two *more* transitions are needed! So, the transition between rhipidisitan fish and early amphibians is pretty well documented as is the transition from mammal-like reptiles to mammals (the latter includes modifictions of the inner ear and jaw). Since we can't get *every* generation, the creationists say we haven't actually shown the transition.

Answer 6

Go take a paleontology class. Yes, we DO have transistional species in the geologic record for a great many genera. Most of these are invertabrates and stretch back into the Paleozoic. Take a look at the brachiopods (spirifers, for example) and even trilobites.

Neadertals almost certainly never numbered in the "millions" at any one time, and they ALL lived more or less in Europe. We have LOTS and LOTS of fossils of them--especially from the famous site of Kaprina. In fact, a new discovery (within the last 2 years in Spain, I believe) has revealed 100s more individuals to add to the total.

They probably didn't survive into modern times for a number of reasons. According to ALL of the most recent work on them, they seemed to be very provincial in there activities...that is, they didn't travel far from their caves to hunt, and only got togther in large numbers (like at Kaprina) rarely. So, when "modern humans" arrived on the scene--who DID travel and trade FAR more widely--we just basically "out competed" them. (This is way too simplified even though it's accurate. You should research this topic in detail). Some have suggested that we hunted & wiped out the Neandertals, but that's hard to prove. Professor Milford Wolpoff (at U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor) suggests that Neandertals vanished because they interbred with us until finally there were no "pure blood" Neadnertals left. Recent DNA studies don't really support this (which is too bad, because it's the view I favor).

There are some great Neandertal websites out there. Just do a google serach and you'll find them.
Good luck

Answer 7

I'm glad you are reaching out and asking such a good question. It would be important to spell check your questions before sending them in the future.

Neanderthals survived until shortly after the appearance of humans according to fossil data. Which implies that a few things could have happened. The genes that make us Homo Sapiens might be dominant and therefore we bred them out of existence or we may have killed them oof because they are different (how often has that happened in history?).

But as for accounts of transitional species, there are many. But sadly, school systems particularly in Kansas and other places where conservative creationism is in control science gets ignored, rewritten and banned these concepts are undermined by self- proclaimed authorities on the subject who say this or that is incorrect. So when a textbook gets written for the sole purpose of casting doubt on the validity of Darwin's theory, I don't immediately question Darwin's theory, I scrutinize the source of the textbook and try to understand the agenda at work. Creationism is fighting a losing battle. Science is real, Creationism is faith - not provable.

One more thing, you can still believe in God and know that evolution is real. They are not contradictory. For all we know, God used evolution to create biodiversity in millions of years...not a few days like the bible says. Days to whom? How long are God's days?

Answer 8

Chimps and apes evolved to be chimps and apes. Primitive man evolved into modern man. People make the mistake of thinking that chimps and apes evolved into man. This is not the case. Man and Primates evolved from one common ancestor. Some of those ancestors stayed in the trees, while other ones took to the caves and such. That is why we evolved differently.

There is evidence of transitional species. Here is a paper on the evolution of the horse, for instance.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Everything from the first to the last are transitional species.

The evolution of the whale tells us that it used to walk on land. All of those animals were transitional.
In fact WE ARE TRANSITIONAL. Human evolution is not over. If we last long enough, we may not look anything like we do today.

Answer 9

Piltdown Man used to be a false created in 1912 and uncovered as such in 1953, it has certainly not been facet of any sequence of transitional species as that suggestion is the one who changed the almost always quoted concept of 'lacking hyperlinks'. Nebraska Man is from the Nineteen Twenties, and used to be at worst a hoax and at high-quality a mistake made via persons that didn't have the talents we've at present founded at the discovering of a unmarried teeth, it in the end became out to be a form of peccary, a wild relative of the pig. The Coelacanth is without doubt one of the few examples of a actual nonetheless current transitional species and lives often across the Comoro Islands within the Indian Ocean. There are a quantity of actual transitional species which were observed within the fossil list certainly within the evolution of the pony, and so on similar to spiders, more than a few bugs and mammal-like lizards, there may be ample proof to be had for transitional and intermediate species within the evolution of individuals. In the case of Piltdown the invention of the fakery dates again practically sixty years, and when it comes to Nebraska this used to be disproved quickly after discovery and is for this reason now ninety years obsolete. use of suck useless know-how does the rationale of creationism no goo whatever. In reality the reverse is correct, technology holds its hand up whilst it's unsuitable, faith and those who desire to push the creationist schedule simply attempts difficult to disprove each and every discovery, this makes creationism unscientific as technology certainly not is going out to end up a bad.

Answer 10

Well, the Cro-magnon came along and actually lived side-by-side with the Neanderthal. Since the Cro-magnon had more "forward thinking" and innovative abilities, they literally outsmarted the Neanderthal. The Cro-magnon skull was shaped so that the frontal lobe of the brain could expand. I believe (not absolutely sure) that Neanderthal bones and artifacts have been found in France. I AM sure that some of their cave art has been found there.

Now, the Neanderthal may have died out just by "Natural Selection," but another theory is that they didn't survive some catastrophic event. We know that there have been several "bottlenecks," where only the strongest and smartest survived.