Questions Evolutionist will always try to dodge.?

Question

These are specific questions about evolution

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

What intermediate fossil finds, if any have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago?

My Answer: There are NONE.

Explain why I am wrong?

Question:
If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?


My Answer: Because you have to believe it by FAITH. There is no evidence for it. It become you religion.

Question:
What haven’t I studied that will show me intermediate fossils? There should be millions of them, yet there is none.

Why is that?

Answer 1

What you fail to realize is that the theory you are discussing is just that, a THEORY. That means it is the best explanation that is available to science with the given data. The lack of intermediate fossils Is a problem for this theory, but it is still the one most agreed upon by the scientific community. I am neither a scientist nor a believer in the Judeo-Christian deity called "God", however i do have a mind, and this is simply the best that I have seen. As much as a problem that this theory has, i think another question may be asked, as you are very fired up about this question. Where is God?

Answer 2

There were a handful of fossil species known in Darwins day. Today there are ~300,000. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of intermediate species known - all the 300,000 species fit in to a branching tree of life. There are also gradations between species known among the most abundant fossil species with a continuous eco-space, all exactly as predicted by evolution and modern observations of speciation. Of course, the fossil record is not even needed for there to be overwhelming evidence for evolution. That is overwhelmingly supports evolution, as all data does, is yet another bonus.

You should have picked up pretty much any book on fossils, any biological text-book, and, if you were still determined to lie, gone in to any university geological/biological library and started picking random books off the shelf. Short of that, 5 minutes on google would have prevented you from looking like a complete moron and gutter-trash liar. Funny how morals and creationism are mutually exclusive.

Answer 3

In Darwin's day not a lot of fossils were know. But in recent decades paleontologists have found transitional fossils to explain virtually every vertebrate line starting from Paleozoic amniotes. Here's just the fish to tetrapod transitional sequence:

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

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.

Answer 4

This is what Richard Dawkins calls the "worship of gaps". Yes, it is true that there are gaps in fossil evidence between species. No scientist will dispute that. However it is not a rational deduction to conclude that 1) these species whose fossils have not been found didn't exist, and 2) because we don't yet have this evidence, creationism is correct. It is just to easy to insert God as the explanation for that which is currently unknown. I pose this question to you. Say that there are two fossil species that are considered related but there is 4 million years between when they existed. That makes one big gap. If they find a fossil species in between them, does that make two big gaps instead of the one gap? How ironic is that? They find a linking species which discredits the creationism but now there are even more gaps than before! By your argument, every time a linking species is found there are even more gaps for which you base your argument for a Creator. In other words, by your proposed argument, every time more evidence is found in support of evolution, it supports the argument for a Creator because of more gaps. That makes absolutely no sense.

Answer 5

There have been many intermediate fossils found in the human/homidid line. Any many more branches that are not in our direct line of descent. Where did all those other hominids come from?

Also remember that most of the species that have ever existed on earth didn't leave any fossils at all, fossilization is an extremely rare process.

If you are HONESTLY interested in learning about evolution:

www.talkorigins.org

Answer 6

Linking to scientific journals isn't "dodging questions." That's pointing creationists to the documented scientific facts regarding evolution. We are hoping that they can figure out how evolution works, since most often, when someone is out spouting creationism, they haven't a clue how evolution ---actually works---. They are so closed-minded that they will -not- recognize facts, and come across as simple and uninformed rather than intelligent and convincing. Most often, the questions posed aren't worth replying to because of this fact. It would be nice to get some informed, actually challenging questions instead of the mindless uninformed drivel that passes for 'creationism' on here.

Answer 7

Yes, you're wrong.

1. ALL fossil are intermediate, or transitional.
2. There have been plenty of fossils found showing transitional stages, you just have to open your eyes and LOOK. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
3. Darwin was not an archaeologist and the access to information was not as readily available as it is today.
4. There is proof of evolution everywhere, and proof that it continues today. The PROBLEM, is that no matter what is found, you'll still deny it because you are blinded by your "faith".

Careful. Your ignorance is showing.

Answer 8

Actually every single fossil is an intermediate fossil. Specifically Darwin was referring to fossils between living groups today -- those have been found and confirmed. About 99% of all fossils are from organisms not alive today, and most of them are common ancestors to organisms living today.

You saying otherwise is bearing false witness, isn't it?

Answer 9

The website below on intermediary fossils took me 30 seconds to find...why couldn't have you done just a little investigation before making this foolish boast?

Answer 10

You`re quite correct. They are also called " Transitional links " and is one of the big stumbling blocks in the Theory of evolution. However there is more evidence to point to evolution than there is for Religious explanations of the creation of the World. So, until something better comes along.......