2006-12-04 16:04:17 · 24 answers · asked by ? 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Them's fightin' words....
Of all the evidence there is, there is a certain lack of a complete and uncountable remnant, that should be there. But, thru many finds, we have seen things. Of course, as the proof comes, some of it is proven false 5-50 years later. So. Be ready and put up the shields.....
2006-12-04 16:07:04 · answer #1 · answered by TCFKAYM 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋
You're reciting creationist propaganda. Take some time to research and you'll see the propaganda is false. I suggest you start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
And specifically this FAQ:
Question: If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?
Answer: Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.
**** Edit ****
About archaeopteryx:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
2006-12-04 16:12:33 · answer #2 · answered by Jim L 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Stating an ignorant head-in-the-sand lie doesn't make it the truth. Whole branching trees of life are shown by the fossil record. There are 10's of thousands of species that represent 'in-between' stages between two other, incredibly similar species. And, among the most abundant fossils (eg. foraminifera), gradual transitions between species are commonly observed. I suggest you do some research outside of lairs-for-my-version-of-Jesus publications.
2006-12-04 21:17:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Um if you look at the 600 million plus years of the fossil record you will see the increasing complexity of life over the ages this is consistent with evolutionary theory. There really isn't a gap in the fossil record.
Where did you get your information from?
I suggest you buy or borrow from a library a book about paleontology or geology and don't read slanted texts with a religious agenda before you make any more comments about the fossil record.
2006-12-04 16:11:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
How can you make that statement? Nature works in the hundred thousand/millions of years. What ever you see or have is just a snap shot of what is going on.
Given the way humans have messed with their food and water, the amount of chemistry humans put into their bodies daily, do you really think the same anatomy will be in existence 500,000 years from now? And that is provided we do not kill each other off first.
2006-12-04 16:30:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They ALL are transitional forms. That said, the creatures with transitional forms often struggled until they hit the successful combination at which point the population exploded. This explains why you see far more fossils of a particular trait than the transition. Still, thousands of transitional forms have been identified.
2006-12-04 16:30:12 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
acheaopteryx was a completely feathered perching bird with the brain size and shape and skull of a bird. Not a transitional fossil. All bird, no reptile.
There are no real transitional forms. Even creatures and plants preserved in amber show almost the exact same animals as there were back then.
There are even living fossils today...the celocanth (sp?) that fish with the stumpy protrusions with fins at the end the evolutionists thought were precursors to land walking animals are alive today. Do a *snicker* proper word search, you know where it's spelled correctly and not my spelling.....and you can find pics of it alive today. To date there are no official iron clad transitional forms in the fossil record. Even the dating methods are squirrelly and unreliable. look into it. i like this website...it has a topic index for word searching and articles in droves supporting creation and a young earth.
www.answersingenesis.org
good luck and have fun
2006-12-04 16:16:03 · answer #7 · answered by sheepinarowboat 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Well actually a lot of fossils are during the in between stages of evolution. Technically, every fossil that you find is in between evolution. Consider the wooly mammoth, now its an elephant. Neanderthals came between monkeys and man.
2006-12-04 16:08:11 · answer #8 · answered by QB 3 · 7⤊ 4⤋
they are sillpants.
If you took the time read something other than the Bible and creationist theory you would know this. Right now churches all over the world are trying to prevent Kenya from putting an exhibit in one of their museums that USE ACTUAL FOSSILS to show the stages of evolution for human beings.
I am so sick of people saying, evolutoin is not a fact, it is just a theory. Well you know what? Gravity is just a theory as well. Does this mean you do not believe in gravity?
2006-12-04 16:06:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Evolution happens constantly so technically all fossils are in-between species.
2006-12-04 16:13:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋