CREATIONISTS: how can you say there are no transitional fossils (missing links) when in reality we have many?

Question

not only can we provide transitional fossils, but we can actually provide long chains of transitional fossils. here are just a few:

land mammal to whale:
pakicetus --> ambulocetus --> rodhocetus --> basilosaurus --> modern whales

theropod dinosaur to bird:
oviraptor --> lisboasaurus --> archaeopteryx --> sinornis --> hesperornis --> modern birds

lobe-finned fish to amphibian:
eusthenopteron --> panderichthys --> tiktaalik --> acanthostega --> ichthyostega --> modern amphibians (and later to the other tetrapods, namely the amniotes)

archaic ape to human:
australopithecine --> h. habilis --> h. ergaster --> h. heidelbergensis --> h. sapiens (modern humans)

how are these not transitional fossils??? what could possibly constitute a transitional fossil?

-------------
-------------
-------------

NORM S,

cats and rabbits have the same skeletal structures?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?! where do you people come up with this stuff????????? ---- and how does that answer my question?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-------------
-------------
-------------

IVAN B,

so in other words, it's a completely wild goose chase. it doesn't matter what kinds of fossils we find, you will always say, "well, that one was created, therefore it doesn't count as a transitional form".

i don't think you realize what the word "transitional" means. obviously no one has ever seen evolution occur, much in the same way that no one has ever seen continental drift occur. (oh wait, i forgot, you don't believe in that either.), but that has no bearing on whether or not these fossils are transitional.

-------------
-------------
-------------

(heart) TOM (heart),

quote:
"And where are your living "transitional" animals today?"

uhm,,, there aren't any LIVING ones. they all died, as should be expected. i never said that i knew of LIVING transitional animals.

quote:
"Just because two animals have similar parts does not mean that one had to evolve into the other.. or each evolve from some distant ancestor of both.. it is POSSIBLE that they were both created to be different and yet similar..."

you're right. that is possible, and i'm always open to possibilities. the question though, is "what's more likely"? animals bear similarities that often do not help them in their environment (for example, whales have mammal-like lungs and limb bones). this is a strong indicator of common ancestry.

creationists often explain similarities in organisms with the "common designer" argument. this fails to explain the DISsimilarities though. organisms are arranged in a nested pattern. that's a strong indication of common descent.

quote:
"I still have trouble believing that one species can spring from another species (one animal of a new species living for millions of years until another animal of the same new species is born to mate with it)"

i would have trouble believing that too. that's not how evolution works though. the changes that occur are minimal. allow to demonstrate

for the purposes of this demonstration, we'll say that species A has a child who is slightly altered, but not to the point that he is a new species. we will say that he is only 2% of the way toward being a new species. since his DNA is not too different from the others then, it is still possible for him to breed with them. he has many children, and all of them are 1% of the way toward becoming a new species (because they have half of his genes and half of the other parents genes. you follow?)

if this modification is not as good as the standard, then it'll die out pretty fast. if the modification however is BETTER than the standard (which will happen every once in a while), then it will spread and shift the entire population closer to the new species, we'll call it species B. (although it should be noted that species B is not the long-term goal of species A. species A could evolve into in number of different new species. i'm just calling it species B to try to make it a little more clear for you to understand.) once this has happened, species A might now be a tenth of a percent of the way through the process.

then another change occurs, changing the DNA of the population ever so slightly, and moves them another tenth of a percent, etc. --- eventually the population will have changed so much that it will be a new species. (meaning a member would not be able to breed with any of their ancestors from a million years earlier.)

does that make sense to you?

-------------
-------------
-------------

MONICA80,

your words have no meaning unless you can tell me where my research is lacking. this is a bark with no bite. i suggest that YOU do more research.

-------------
-------------
-------------

BOOTH G,

no, you're wrong. those are nothing more than creationist lies. their bodies wouldn't need to change all at once because their life styles did not change all at once.

Answer 1

They are excellent examples of transitional fossils. I applaud you for still trying to bring some light to the creationists' dim brains.

I've long since given up trying to educate these intellectual cripples. They wilfully ignore the evidence and rant about bad science without even having the vaguest idea of what science is...

At the end of the day we can't force people to use their brains. They have lost the scientific argument (approximately 100 years ago) and have taken it to a political level. Creationism is not a scientific theory - it's an insidious, evil politico-religious dogma and needs to be defeated politically. We must never allow these people into positions of political power. Unfortunately, we have one ruling the most powerful nation on the planet at the moment.

Answer 2

what I do not have an understanding of is how any individual can say any individual is near minded approximately this entire deal whilst it is visible that many have studied either side of the coin.... I am of the opinion that archaeopteryx is conveniently an extinct chicken. There is without doubt no evidence that this can be a transitional fossil for that very motive.. It's a fossil - now not a dwelling creature that may be studied, determined and bred. If it had been transitional, there could have got to be actually 1000s or thousands of transitional fossils displaying the difference from an precise reptilian creature as much as the archaeopteryx, and alternatively, from the archaeopteryx to birds themselves. The approach could contain big quantities of genetic understanding being misplaced and mutated. And wherein does the genetic understanding that's won come from? Just the actual fact that evolutionary technological know-how states that this approach took thousands of years SHOULD produce this lacking proof. I do not have an understanding of how, logically, any individual can declare it as truth whilst conclusive proof is not there. The logical end is that it is a perception process, now not truth in any respect. benefits :)

Answer 3

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis.

For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), are a famous example of such forgery.

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

- Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull
- Nebraska Man: A Pig's Tooth
- Ota Benga: The African In The Cage
- The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

The Secret History of Homo Sapiens:
- A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
- Footprints of Modern Man, 3.6 Million Years Old!
- The Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution

Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do not yet know'. The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers.

Answer 4

Well, obviously the walls are closing in on the old 'Creationist' argument. The problem with the battle of the church against knowledge is that knowledge spreads naturally, and lies take a lot of talking to maintain. Hopefully by the time you and I are fossils, our kids will have moved on to something else. I think we all know you have to be a total quack to think the earth is only 6,000 years old. ha ha.

Answer 5

And where are your living "transitional" animals today?...

Just because two animals have similar parts does not mean that one had to evolve into the other.. or each evolve from some distant ancestor of both.. it is POSSIBLE that they were both created to be different and yet similar...

I still have trouble believing that one species can spring from another species (one animal of a new species living for millions of years until another animal of the same new species is born to mate with it)

Answer 6

They deny this just as they deny that the Bible has no contradictions. They will slowly concede to Evolution though, just as they have with every other scientific advance. Religion is very slow to change it's mind about it's perception of the world. Just look at Galileo.

Answer 7

My favortie creationist answer is "all those 'human' fossils were actually apes that went extinct" even though some of those "apes" are too close to humans to ever be thought of as apes.

The other answer is "They were all an animal of its own."

Answer 8

im not a creationist but i believe they say something about the 'homo erectus', which they say should've been in the evolutionary chain if it occured.

Answer 9

A half decent creationist will never let truth get in the way of good old fashioned bigotry. They'll probably tell you

a) they are fakes
b) god made them to try and fool you.

Answer 10

gary:

Your only evidence against evolution is what you've read in an ancient book.