How Did Millions of Life Forms Evolve With Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change?

Question

(A few anecdotal examples of mutations do not explain the missing transitional forms in millions of generations of thousands of creatures.)

Please, If you have nothing better to do but leave silly, non-sense, unintelligent, and rude comments , please skip this question! Thanks!

Answer 1

evolution is the biggest hoax and unfortunatley wat too many otherwise intelligent people have fallen for it. I looked up the "transitional forms" list as someone suggested- I see lots of assumptions, losts of imagination and very little fact. I even had to laugh as some of the artists for some of these supposed life forms could take a lesson from my 4th-5th grade art class!
One of my favorite eries as of lte, is the "Creatures that Defy Evolution" there are 3 on DVD - check them out if you have not already- very cool!

Answer 2

Simply put evolution has never claimed there was "major change." A series of very minor changes over a very long period of time results in radically different species.

There were never any half or transitional lifeforms - if you want to believe there are then every lifeform on the planet is a transitional lifeform: including us! We are still evolving slowly, in the last thousand years we've grown significantly taller and our jaws have been shrinking. Obviously there was no major or sudden change/shift, just slow incremental steps.

There were no sudden major leaps or mutations - any mutation that significant would kill the creature or prevent breeding. There are of course minor mutations in every genetic strand, both you and I are mutants to some degree. I'm taller than the rest of my family, and my sister is a faster sprinter than the rest of the family - those are mutations. Everything came about through very slow, gradual, incremental steps.

Answer 3

You should study evolution. I took college courses in it and you obviously don't understand the evidence. Evolution is a proven fact, today and in the past. that is not to say that it doesnt require God as the intelligent designer. i am a Christian and I find no conflict with this and evolution. The Bible say "God said let the earth bring forth the creatures of the sea" That is evolution.

By the way evolution is NOT about mutation. It is about the survival of the children of successful parents. No child is exactly the same as it's parents and the ones that are better than their parents survive.

Answer 4

The purported lack of "intermediate forms" shows nothing except ignorance of the way that evolution works. Genetic information is stored in digital, not analog, form, so a one-bit change in a genetic code will have at least a miniumum effect on the descendants, but there is NO maximum: a one-bit change can activate all or part of an intron, or de-activate all or part of an exon, resulting in a change that is arbitrarily large. And this does not even count transposition or recombination errors (one of which is responsible for Down's syndrome). Evolution has been established science for a hundred years because it makes correct predictions, and it is now a proven fact (details on request).

Answer 5

Because the fossil record isn't perfect. If all human history were to be fossilised, the future paleontologists would probably get half a skeleton, one fossilised sock from the 20s, one Roman sword and one concrete coffin full of nuclear waste.

And that's humans. There were probably millions of prehistoric creatures we've found absolutely no trace of. However, we do have enough transitional forms (Archeopteryx, for example) to support evolution. It's not anectdotal, it's solid evidence.

Answer 6

Your education in biology and paleontology needs to be updated. We now have a wealth of transitional fossils that show step by step changes in every stage between Paleozoic amniotes and modern species, including such interesting transitions as fish to tetrapod, dinosaur to bird, synapsid reptile to mammal, etc.

For example, here is a nice transitional sequence of fish to tetrapod with a few notes on the adaptative nature of each transitional form (note mya= millions of years ago). All of these forms lived in the shallow seas and inlets formed by the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea:

Eusthenopteron 385mya
Had strong bones in the upper fins; adaptive for locomotion in shallow water.

Gogonasus 380mya
Same skeleton as Eusthenopteron, but fin bones are stronger, denser, a little lower into the fin.

Elpistostege, Livonia, Panderichthys 378 mya
Fin bones are now very low into fin. Still a useful adaptation for manuevering in a shallow sea.

Tiktaalik 375 mya
Now has tiny beginnings of fingers at the end of the fins, and the beginning of a crude joint in the fin. Would have been adaptive for clawing its way through an inlet choked with vegetation.

Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys 370 mya
Proto-fingers are now a little longer

Sinostega, Metaxygnathus, Ventastega.Tulerpeton, Jakubsonia, Hynerpeton, Densignathus, etc. 365 mya
Finger bones even longer, some species have as many as 8 proto fingers; still not sturdy enough to come onto land, but very useful in manuevering through water choked with vegetation.

Acanthostega 360mya
Same as before but stronger bones yet, with longer ribs; would have been capable of moving on land like a mud-skipper, going from tidal pool to tidal pool.

Icthyostega 358mya
2 of the 8 fingers fusing into one finger, which will give its descendants 5 fingers, stronger forelims and enclosed ribs. This is the first fish that would have been capable of spending some time on land and feeding on land.

Pederpes 355 mya
Very similar to above, but with enough small modifications that it may be called either proto amphibian or perhaps first true amphibian

Casineria, Lethicus 350 mya
Silvanerpeton 340 mya
Definitely amphibians that can easily walk on land. Still has a very fish-like body shape, but with many skeletal features of modern amphibians

But really the indisputable forensic proof of evolution comes from the burgeoning research in the field of molecular genetics. We are now determining exactly which nucleotide transcription error at what age resulted in which phenotypic variation in evolutionary history.

Answer 7

There certainly is a important quantity of substantial substitute. See, "substantial" substitute isn't something yet quite a number of of very minor differences extra at the same time... perchance an occasion will help you comprehend: a million+a million = 2 2+a million = 3 Now repeat that a number of hundred million circumstances, and you land up with a quantity a number of hundred million circumstances better than the "a million" you started with, yet each and each substitute became very small. Get it? Peace.

Answer 8

I'm not being silly and I'm not being rude, but read your question. what evidence do you have? you said millions of life forms EVOLVE.... evolveing is not changing? you can't rely on the National Enquirer for facts. read a history book (or don't you believe what it says?) Scopes Monkey trial? Charles Darwin? ringing any bells? you do know that Creationism and Evolutionism are still being debated? you don't want rude or silly comments, but your asking a question which you've already decided the answer.

Answer 9

Lots of evidence. You guys complained for 13 decades that there was no whale evolutionary evidence... 'til we found several transitionals from '78 onwards in Pakistan (Pakicetids - ~52 mya; Protocetids - ~45 mya; Dorudon - 38 mya) and Afghanistan (Remingtonocetids - ~48 mya).

Why don't try Google to find more... pick a subject and search.

Answer 10

Fossilization preserves less than 1% of any given organic matter that has died. Seeing this, is it any wonder why exact transitional species may not be known in every instance? Don't forget the fact that many families/species branched off each other and later died out.

Yes, I am a Christian who believes in Evolution, including that you, yes YOU, evolved from hominids, which in turn many eons ago, evolved from single celled organisms. Ain't life grand?