Would christians like to see the evidence of transitional fossils..?

Question

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).


A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).


Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.


Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).


Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).


Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).


The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).


Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:


Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).


Dinosaur-bird transitions.


Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).


The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws.

Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).


Transitions between mesonychids and whales.


Transitions between fish and tetrapods.


Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).


Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).


A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).


Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

Yes this IS cut and pasted, and it is a true and integral part of mainsteam science.
It is THIS which is creationist types argue against, yet the evidence for their lies and mis information should now be abundantly clear. The above information is VERIFIABLE, and CANNOT be shown to be untrue, period..!!!

"Shaniqua", the misinformation you use in an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution bears no resemblance to mainstream scientific priciples and understandings, and is another example of "psuedo science" used by your lot to befuddle the ignorant christian masses into disbelieving anything scientific, yet you attempt to use your psuedo science dribble to do so..!

Yours is no more than complete misinformation, lies and hot air..
Spare us all please..!!

"John 1.1", more lies from you too. Either you are making things up, or whoever asserts these creationist type ramblings does..!!

You sir, are a liar, whether parroting the "company line" or not..!!

Answer 1

well not not only Christians would like to see them but every Darwinist would like to see them. the one gentlman listed what evolution scientist have said about the shortcomings of the fossil record.qoutes like these.

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ........ All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Gould, 1977).

Also Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History also said:- "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated" (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).
The prominent British evolutionist Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna, has made the following comment: "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:-

"...Every palaeontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.].

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Sunderland, 1998).

"Unfortunately evidence of the crucial steps leading to the origin of insects have not yet been found in the fossil record. Wings have contributed more to the success of insects than any other anatomical structures, yet the historical origin of wings remains largely a mystery. The earliest insect fossils that have been discovered, from the Pennsylvanian Period, were already winged...Thus the body structures that developed into wings, the steps in the evolution, and the ecological circumstances that favoured wings are debatable." (Daly, H.V., J.T. Doyen, and P.R. Ehrlich. 1978. Introduction to Insect Biology and Diversity. McGraw Hill, NY. 564pp.; p. 274, 308).
Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes. From 'the links are missing'.

Answer 2

I'd think the fossil record would prove that evolution is not valid. I certainly believe in mutations.

But consider
1. there is an amazing LACK of transitional fossils
2. some fossils are 100% the same as now--indicating that those particular creatures haven't "evolved" at all. Not a hint of difference from today.
3. some fossils are found made up of more than one strata Aren't strata supposed to be 100s of millions of years apart in time? Gosh, some of these fossils go between both strata. I wonder why? Maybe half the animal died 100 million years before the other half.
4. a number of extinct plants and animals in fossils appear to be HIGHLY advanced, not some of them advanced only
5. some strata do not contain fossils in the "order" that is acceptible to evolutionists...

Answer 3

the entire "transitional fossil" argument is a boondoggle, from the two Creationists and Darwinists. this is smoke and mirrors, no longer substance. that's because of the fact there quite are not any transitional fossils. entire, completely stronger physique types seem interior the geologic checklist without precursors, and then they stay in fact unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, until at present. we don't have tiers of progression between one physique form and yet another. previous claims of transitional fossils, like the archaeopteryx, have the two been wrongly claimed to have been transitional, or have been tried fakes. that's additionally because of the fact there are fossils that are considered to be transitional, yet they're transitional because of the fact somebody else says they're. If something seems sufficient like an alligator, this is labeled as an alligator's ancestor. yet there is not any no longer undemanding technology to back this up. "quite, take my be conscious for it; this is an alligator's mom." without dozens of transitional fossils showing the sluggish replace, you will in no way persuade maximum purpose observers that those fossils are quite transitional. And without that information, some biased observers will declare that what you have isn't probably transitional. no one wins. there is a few stable technology at the back of Darwinism. There additionally are a super many holes interior the concept. I reject Darwinism on the muse of the helping technology, no longer on non secular grounds. For the existence like Creationist, no option is off of the table. God could have created utilising any technique. For the Darwinist, each option is off of the table different than one: Darwinism. who's greater open-minded?

Answer 4

In a word Wrong! There are no cross species transitional fossils. If there were the debate would be over.

"transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another IS required to validate Darwin.

Darwin himself stated that if his theory was correct we would find "thousands" of transitional fossils in varying strata. It has not happened and such evidence will never be produced because it does not exist.

Darwin's theory works very well within species but has not, does not and will not validate all life evolving from one species.

Answer 5

>In a word Wrong! There are no cross species transitional fossils. If there were the debate would be over.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

Ligers. Mules. Not fossils, living cross-species transitional animals, so the debate is over.

Speciation has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Answer 6

Too long. I believe in God, no matter what the atheists keep throwing at me, simple as that.

Answer 7

I can cut and paste articles too!