Evolution?

Question

How is evolution possible when, there are NO transitional forms in animals, for example, there are no fossils of animals that have both scales and feathers??

And when one of the the first know creature the trialibite eyes were very complex, and things like flies have a similar eye structure, going against the simple to complex theory

EDIT: Find me a fossil that has legs, and fins. (according to evolution fish later evolved into reptiles.)

Also, Charles Darwin says Whales are evolved versions of Bears because bears hunted in water until they devolped into whales...explain that, when it is clearly false.

Answer 1

They are discovering now that some species of dinosaurs had feathers. They also have discovered an actual case of species adaptation in the last hundred years or so.

Answer 2

You mean an animal with both scales and feathers? One is an adapted version of the other, so they wouldn't necessarily co-exist. One would predate the other.

As for the simple to complex theory, I think you're missing the point entirely. You're playing with words; you should try to understand the theory you're arguing against. Nobody is saying Evolution does not allow eyes in ancient Trilobites to be comparable to modern animals. If it works, it works.

Now, I don't know anything about fossils with feathers on them. But any scientist who would like to recieve the Nobel Prize and become forever remembered as the one who refuted Darwin can present a competing theory that works better than Evolution. I can assure you that no conspiracy involving a Secret Darwin Society among scientists could ever dissuade a young, hungry biologist from seeking such glory.

---
Edit: It would be much more fruitful to look for a fossil that would refute Evolution. I have no idea if there are fossils with leg/fins, but I don't see why not. But something tells me you don't keep up with the latest fossil discoveries.

Also, you seem to assume Darwin is some sort of Holy Man in Science. He isn't, he's just a noteworthy scientist who pioneered Evolution. What he's said about whales and bears is not set in stone, he was probably mistaken about many things. This would be devastating if Evolution was a religion where nothing can change. But it's just another day discoveries in Science. By the way, how do you mean he was clearly wrong? Do you mean to say that bears and whales have common ancestors?

Answer 3

There are actually transitional forms in animals. I have provided a link below to one such "missing link".

Some evolutionary changes occur slowly with time, as in natural selection. There is also a view that evolution occurs "spurts" of rapid development. Rapid, in this case, is on the order of 50000 years. Although, this sounds like a long time, on the grand scheme, this is not much time. Fossils from transitional animals that arise during these growth spurts are hard to come by, because these animals do not occupy the Earth for very long before assimilating into their evolutionary changes. If the animals aren't around for very long, then there are fewer chances that one of them will become a fossil. Since there are fewer of these fossils around, they are less likely to be discovered by us. Rest assured, though, that we are looking and some have been found.

As far as the simple to complex theory, it still holds, but it is not a law. Use it or lose it still applies. I don't know the connection between trilobites and flies, but I will say this. The fly's eyesight could have evolved from a different evolutionary path from the trilobite and would then be unrelated.

Answer 4

Modern birds still have scales, called scutes, on their legs.

Compound eyes are not particularly complex, and there is no rule that complex creatures cannot become simpler if it is a survival advantage.

Ichthyostaga is an intermediate form between tetrapod fish and amphibians. Leaving out an important step is typical of Creationist lies.

Darwin did not say whales evolved from bears. He reported someone else's account of watching a bear skim water insects through its teeth the way baleen whales filter krill. He described the hypothetical modifications to get from bear to a whale like creature a sample of simple modifications. He never claimed it was the pathway. The only thing that is false is the Creationist misrepresentation of the statement. I quote it in my sources (Creationists don't give sources) to point out the flagrant misrepresentation.

I'm afraid your 0 for 4 and have illuminated some typical Creationist lies. Keep asking loaded questions. I enjoy shooting them down.

Answer 5

You are sadly misinformed about transitional forms and I think I see the reason why, at least in your case. You are the victim of typological thinking. You think a species is either one thing or the other or has some " essence " that makes it itself. You are wrong. The biological species concept is really about variants. That is what species are, variants, that are separated by reproductive isolation. So, you will see no transitional forms that your misinformation leads you to expect, though there are more than enough transitional forms. No snake/birds or bear/dogs. Taxonomic branching from a common ancestor leaves many intermediates. Think of evolution as a bush, with many forms as the small branching's.

Now, as to trilobites. Aside from everything else to do with the eyes. Evolution has no direction. Generally, it is from simple to complex, but this is no law. Complex to simple has been found, though the precise organism escapes me. Natural selection is responsive to changes in the environment, so, if complex to simple were called for by environmental pressures, then that would happen. Check out the sites you have been given. To learn evolutionary theory is to sometimes unlearn what you think you know.

Answer 6

Hm.... That's also a question I've been wondering about since I was 5. (That's practically 9 years ago, by the way.)

My more simpler answer would have to be:

Evolution carries on at the slowest pace or fastest pace you could ever deem to imagine. It's like infinity, or space- We don't understand it because we are either unable to, because there is no proof, or because it seems to go by so slowly that we can't hope to comprehend it's activity. Most humans don't believe what they can't see, and since we are unable to constantly see the chain of evolution reform and form itself, we either ignore it, or attempt to ask questions about it to gain a suitable answer or two. According to some scientists, we humans are evolving right now, affected by the discovery of electricity, we are slowly gaining the natural 'power' to view objects in the dark, like other more feral creatures of Earth. Just because evolution occurs at an extremely difficult-to-view pace does not mean it never happens.

Or perhaps, If I take off from the words of God (I'm not insulting Christianity, so Please don't say that I am, please.), then he had already created the world as we understand it now, and has kept it fairly or absolutely the same it had been thousands, upon thousands of years ago.
But who are we to argue about Time?

So:
Evolution is possible because it occurs at a much slower pace than the Human attention span, or the mind can deem to understand, currently.

And as for the fossils question:
Just because fossils that have scales and feathers have not been publicly discovered and put on every single billbord in every single country, continent, and such, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Answer 7

Um....no. There are in fact many transitional forms. How many do they need to find before religious zombies will accept it as valid. A million? A million forms between each Class? Oh, and the eye argument? That one is pure garbage. The eyespots and simple photo-sensitive pigments in simple organisms are very simple. As in, not a real organ simple. The types of eye range from the 'not actually an eye just a sensitive protein' to the ciliary eye. Look up some actual facts instead of just parroting Kent Hovind or that other idiot. Ignorance is not a virtue.

Answer 8

first of all, evolution doesn't say that organisms go from simple to complex. organisms evolve to fill an ecological niche. if the costs and benefits weigh out so that an eye should not get more complex, or even streamline its design, to be the most adaptive, then so be it.

all living organisms are "transitional forms" in a way. try studying things that evolve quickly, like microorganisms, or even the size and shape of birds' beaks, and you will understand better.

you just don't understand evolution very well.

Answer 9

1- Birds have both scales and feathers -- feathers are just another kind of scale.

2 - The three types of trilobite eyes (Holochroal , Schizochroal, Abathochroal) are all primitive compound eyes -- NOT more advances than fly eyes.

Evolution is more than possible. It is all well established fact. 99.999999999 percent of scientists are probably not wrong.

Answer 10

> animals that have both scales and feathers??
You've never seen a chicken? Scales on the legs, feathers on the body.

> eyes were very complex
Look for simpler eyes among the molluscs. I was working with sea hares. Very simple eyes.