What is your take on the creationist argument that lack of transitionary fossils counters evolution?

Question

Is there really a lack of "transitionary" fossils? How do we determine a fossil is indeed "transitionary"? Do you consider this a weakness in Darwin's theory, as he did?
It's a bit of an all-encompassing question, feel free to digress (within reason). :P

Answer 1

There is not a lack of transitional fossils.

There ARE relatively few fossil records of speciation in progress, but this is to be expected given the way that we have observed speciation to have occurred in modern environments (relatively rapid, often occuring in an isolated subset of the population), the patchiness in time and space of the geological record, and the rarity of most fossils. However, that said, among the most abundant fossil groups, gradual transitions between species are often seen (eg. some foraminifera, radiolaria, dinocysts in my experience). And a lot of species are observed to just gradually change over time (a 'species' in paleontology is a workable classification that incorporates a range in morphology, hence it is often not possible to separate a population which exhibits a gradual change in average form over time in to separate 'species'... but I digress).

At a coarser level, a species intermediate in morphology between a very similar species which first occurs in older strata, and a very similar species which first occurs in younger strata, can be considered transitional. Of course, without observing a record of the speciation, there is no proof. But when you see derived characters building on derived characters building on derived characters and on and on and on....

Most crucially, standing back and looking at the wider picture of the fossil record, whether you compare different families of bivalves, or classes of vertebrates, the fossil record is chock full of transitional fossils. The famous Archaeopteryx to take a simple, over-used example, with features of reptiles and birds. Although probably not a direct ancestor of birds, more of a cousin, it shows evidence of the reptile - bird transition. You don't need to see every single individual organism which ever lived.

Darwin would have considered the fossil record a weakness because at the time, 150 years ago, there were very few fossils known. But nowdays there are hundreds of thousands of fossil species known and millions and millions of specimens. A branching bush of life, from simple ancestors to today, is extremely well evidenced by the fossil record.

Answer 2

Well, just because we haven't found a transitionary fossil yet doesn't mean the creationists can say there isn't one. I wouldn't call it a weakness in Darwin's theory either, since there is so much evidence for his theory already. We didn't just "pop up" on the planet. There *are* transitionary fossils somewhere. We'll have a complete picture of how we evolved eventually. Also, the creationist "theory", in all reality, is not even considered by the scientific community. There is not one shred of evidence for it, and so-called creation scientists are only seeking to validate their own (ancient) beliefs by ignoring mind-boggling amounts of evidence rather than really seeking the "truth".

Answer 3

How can you say that EVERY fossil is transitionary??? I sit here in my home, and I am SURROUNDED by rocks that contain fossils. But they are NOT ALL transitionary (Definition: movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another). If that WERE true then NO TWO fossils could possibly be ALIKE, since each one would show some sort of change between the two. You would never be able to find two femur bones from a T-Rex that were the same if that were true. So where is your "checkmate" now? I am wondering if YOU even KNOW what evolution actually concerns itself with, and I will bet you do not. I would love to see how you explain and justify your statement that, "Evolution is the basis of ALL the biological science." That is quite a HUGE claim, there! I await your nasty response and as many thumbs DOWN as your "peeps" will give me... The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. MARANATHA! Come, Lord Jesus, COME!

Answer 4

Well i personally think that this partcicular argument is a bit silly. The reason for a lack of treansitional fossils is that time DOES pass and specimens may have been lost due to decomposition and other natural causes. Missing links are easier substantiated using DNA than fossil records. Geological records give a clear picture of what period said 'creature' may have lived in and can thus be used to prove (or disprove) the validity of any new fossils that are unearthed.

All for now- Peace
-Alex

Answer 5

The strongest transitory fossil argument comes from us; that is the human evolutionary history, even with multiple origins of common ancestors. An argument from ignorance is not a counter to evolutionary theory; we have sufficient transitory fossils , though not as many as we would like. Fossils are snapshots of the history of the earth, so even fossils that are not transitory have been attacked by creationist, many time and always fallaciously. They have yet to mount a serious rebuttal to evolutionary theory, let alone submit one iota of evidence to support their creation " myth ".

PS mole man, you did not digress, but got right to your oft refuted points. Creationists seem to have trouble with the English language; meaning and usage. Digress means to turn aside from the main subject. I guess maybe you did, since all you said was nonsense.

PPS No surprise, mole man, your web site could not be found. I was looking forward to all those " facts " you were speaking of. Now I can not refute them first hand, though talk origins does a much better job than I can.

Answer 6

Flat out denial. The intermediate forms (and there are many) are rare for a reason. In periods of prosperity, there is population expansion and little selective pressure. When times are tough, then there is a selective pressure, and this is when the intermediate forms are more likely to appear as the environment is likely changing. In this time there are less creatures overall. This is not a flaw. The prediction and discovery of transitional fossils is one of many facts that turned a novel hypothesis into a tested theory.

Answer 7

I would love to digress. I'm going to try to present to you some other evidnce creationists have found that refute the theory of evolution. For all of you who read this, I find no need to be insulted if you disagree--just disagree and state your facts. We are all free humans who have the power to think and believe as we wish, and I hope none of you try to take that from me--it is my right to think differently if I so choose.

1.) Lack of transitory fossils is a huge hole in the theroy of evolution. We have found fossils that scientists claim ecompass all periods of time, and we have found a lot of those fossils. So, why have we not found one, just one, transitionary fossil?

2.) Radiocarbon dating is NOT ALWAYS CORRECT. There are so many external factors that must be examined when determining the age of something. Here are some arguments against the accuracy of radiocarbon dating:
The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in nature.
Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.
Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.
Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.
So, if the age attributed to rocks is incorrect, then the age of the earth (supposedly 4.5 billion years) could also be incorrect, which would not give evolution the necessary time to run its course.

3.) Perhaps the most striking piece of evidence creationists have to refute the theory of evolution is space dust. Scientists have determined the amount of intersteller dust the moon collects every year. If the moon truly was 4.5 billion years old, there would be eight to ten feet of this interstellar dust. Turns out there is less than an inch of this interstellar dust on the moon.

I hope you take time to consider some of the facts, yes, facts, that I have presented above. I am not asking you to accept that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, or vice versa. I just want you to examine these things, and then decide for yourself how you are going to feel about the age of the universe, etc. There are extremely convincing arguments on both sides. I guess I'm just asking you to not allow yourself to be brainwashed be society's beliefs one way or the other. YOU make the decision. I hope this helps.

Answer 8

There are actually a lot of transitional fossils. But every time one is discovered, creationists say that is just an extinct species and you have to find another transitional fossil. For example if they found a fossil of a fish with legs (has been found), creationists say, well now find a transitional fossil between that fish with legs and regular fish. Then when that is found, they want another transitional fossil between that one and fish. So it goes on and on. Scientists know a heck of a lot, and they aren't trying to fool you, they just want to learn things.

Answer 9

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.