Where can I see the fossil of a shellfish with a partially, developed shell?

Question

IF EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED, THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOULD CLEARLY SHOW INTERMEDIATE STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISTINCT, ANATOMICAL FEATURES. SUCH AS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED:- BONES, SHELLS OF SNAILS & SHELLFISH ETC. AS BILLIONS OF CREATURES WITH INTERMEDIATE FEATURES WOULD HAVE LIVED AND DIED IN THE MILLIONS OF YEARS REQUIRED FOR THESE STRUCTURES TO BE ACQUIRED AND PERFECTED, SUCH FOSSILS SHOULD BE EXTREMELY ABUNDANT. PARTICULARLY IF CREATURES WITH HARD PARTS EVOLVED FROM SOFT-BODIED CREATURES, THEN THE GRADUAL ACQUISITION OF HARD PARTS BY SOFT-BODIED CREATURES SHOULD BE ABUNDANTLY DOCUMENTED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. ESPECIALLY AS THESE HARD PARTS, SUCH AS SHELLS AND BONES ARE SO EASILY AND FREQUENTLY PRESERVED AS FOSSILS.

SO WHERE CAN I SEE SUCH FOSSILS?

Answer 1

Typical Creationist dishonesty. What use would half an arm bone be?? Of course you don't get "transitional fossils" when you dishonestly define them as such. Nothing in Evolutionary Theory says that you would. Either you have no idea of what you are talking about and you are repeating dishonesty heard elsewhere, or else you are outright dishonest yourself. And of course no-one respects such disgraceful dishonesty.

The fossil record shows nothing but macroevolution - incremental change from one morphotype to the next. Take your hateful head out of the sand and take a look for yourself.

Answer 2

A very good question.

A couple hundred years ago, there were people such as Richard Owen who could look at one bone from any animal , past and present, and could draw the rest of the animal pretty well and completely. It turns out there were many times that volcanos asteroids, whatever, temp changes, etc, caused mass extinctions. Those brilliant anatomists just thought God started new with each extinction cuz it looked that way. As more fossil evidence gets found, more missing pieces get placed, the puzzle is now pretty clear. At least if you really look at the evidence and have an open mind.

Answer 3

First, turn off the caps lock and calm down.
Then, think about it. If an organism has no hard part of shell, do you think it would be easily perserved as a fossil?
Now, I think you would agree that some organisms have thicker or harder shells than others, even in the same genus. So, can we agree that some snails have thicker and harder shells than others?

Now can we agree that the snails that have harder and thicker shells will be represented in the fossil record more often? That one probably will be hard for you to agree to because of your understanding of fossils.

If there were snails that had just a very thin and soft shell in the course of evolution, they probably would not have been preserved as fossils.

Answer 4

Check the link below. It has a shell, but the shell isn't spiraled the way a snail's shell would be today.

You can also google for "small shelly fauna."

Answer 5

go to talk.origins.org, they have hundreds of pictures for you. also, try the Chicago museum of Natural History, many hundreds of transitional fossils on display there.

Answer 6

most museums will have some on show. sometimes you can find them in the west country on the beaches if you look carefully.