What counts as a "transitional form"? What would I have to show you for you to say "oh, its a transitional form"?
2007-01-28 07:39:14 · 6 answers · asked by anthonypaullloyd 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
luvdalz68, you cannot (or should not) answer a "what" question with "because". You answer "because" to "why".
2007-01-28 08:19:11 · update #1
Maybe a totally new phyla, class, order, family. To my incomplete knowledge not "evolution" has been seen above the genus level and mostly on the species level. An all new body type is what we are talking about with the in between stages clearly evident, to date there are only a few very disputed examples of transitional forms. It is unwise to except dogmatically the extrapolation of particle to person evolution from observation of adaptive change within a species. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic material that has never been observed and in the lab has only produced non-viable mutants.
2007-01-28 07:45:00 · answer #1 · answered by HAND 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because everything that evolutionists claim are "transitional forms" are simply species in their own right; they are not "transitional" between anything. All the fossil record shows are mostly modern animals plus some extinct ones. Extinction is not proof of evolution. It only means that animals die. For example, the so-called "transitional" Archaeopteryx was just an unusual perching bird. It had claws on its wings, but so do swans and several other kinds of modern birds. It had "teeth", but so do chickens. Archaeopteryx had fully functional wings and feathers - they were not "transitional" from dinosaurs. The picture you saw on the cover of National Geographic was pure fantasy, not fact. But they want people to believe in evolution, so they create "lifelike" recreations based upon their preconceived biases. Also, modern birds have been found in layers below where Archaeopteryx was found. This would disprove the idea that Archaeopteryx "evolved" first, and it would support the idea that there was a worldwide flood, and one kind of bird just happened to get buried below another kind of bird that lived at the same time. This is the more likely explanation. BTW, Almost ALL fossils, except for those found in coal, amber or precious metals, are found in SEDIMENTARY rock, from Flood sediment.
2007-01-28 15:56:03 · answer #2 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
There go the loony creationshits and IDiots again. Don't they relalise that they are the fossils, the dinosaurs and the dodos?.
Guys, this is big league academic stuff, why don't Gary et Lavwhatsit go back to elementary school and learn to think, not quote and cut and paste some half-crazed shit4brains pastor. Time you learned some evolved thinking before you go extinct.
2007-01-28 18:07:59 · answer #3 · answered by troothskr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is plenty of evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION:.
First, the 'Cambrian explosion'...... the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.
Most well educated evolutionists, when forced to, will admit it, but very unwillingly, and even then they always want to seem to make new excuses for it. Usually they just don't say anything about it and hope noone finds out.
The fossil record is really evidence for Creation
The thing to remember is that evolution is still just a theory - a hypothesis, a speculation, an unproven assumption.
According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....
2007-01-28 15:43:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Why, what do you have? I suppose a fish with four legs would be transitional.
2007-01-28 15:45:58 · answer #5 · answered by supertop 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
everything is a transitional form (except the evolutionary dead ends like the dodo), everything is either slowly evolving or slowly going extinct
2007-01-28 15:42:32 · answer #6 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋