Evolutionists say that there are transitional forms. My question is?

Question

What makes one fossil related to an earlier or newer fossil?
In other forms, if we find an "Australopithecus" fossil, what tells me it isn't just another species that's not related to the new humans. Why do we need to be related? What is the link?

Answer 1

great question

the answer is, sometimes its not an ancestor of homo sapiens

different scientists have different "lines"

different evolutionary trees

i think within australopithecus there probably is a lot of speicies that arent are ancestor and a few that maybe are

Answer 2

When you find a series of fossil forms, each a bit older than the next, and each slightly different from the next, the evolutionary sequence become obvious. And it makes a lot more sense than the notion that God created one elephant-like animal, let it exist for a couple of hundred thousand years, then wiped it out and created another very similar but slightly different elephant-like animal, then did the same thing again a hundred thousand years later, and continued to do this dozens if not hundreds of times. It is an incontrovertible fact that new species have replaced earlier species throughout the history of life on earth. That fact isn't open to any serious discussion. So, the only question is HOW this has occurred. Presumably then, God will eventually wipe out the two modern elephant species and create two new species almost but not quite identical to them?? What's the point?? Did God forget that His Holy Word says He initially created animal life, and then "rested", that is, STOPPED creating? Creationists apparently reject Scripture on this point and claim that God has continued creating new species from nothing every now and then, right up to the present day?

Answer 3

Not related? The creature looks more like a human than any creature that is still alive. How can you say they are not related?

Rampitepithicus, which was smaller and existed earlier according to carbon dating, looked a bit less like a human, therefore Australopithecus was either a 'transitional form' or the descendant of one.

Answer 4

They don't just pick up a skull and a kneecap and say 'this looks quite like a badger'. The placement of fossils within the evolutionary tree is based on minute - and microscopic - analysis of its every detail.

Have a look at the link below for Tiktaalik, a recently-discovered walking fish transitional species. It should give a flavour.

CD

Answer 5

It has to do with the fact that certain features can only be found in certain species. It's a really technical thing like forensics. You'd think "why couldn't the hit be done with a bat instead of a cane?" there simply is an art to it. In addition, fossils are found progressively and in expected areas.

Answer 6

Your question demonstrates: ( ) perception and documents ( ) a elementary fake impact between scientists ( ) a elementary fake impact between severe college pupils ( x) a elementary fake impact between effortless college pupils ( x) an entire loss of familiarity with technology you have ( x) comitted a logical fallacy ( x) misrepresented the concept of evolution ( x) shown utter dismiss for the medical technique ( x) been brainwashed by skill of the institute for creation technology ( ) appealed to the supernatural ( ) used spelling and punctuation properly ( x) omitted the regulations of sensible debate of form ( x) straw guy ( ) advert hominem attack ( x) non sequitur ( ) evidence by skill of fact ( ) fake dichotomy solutions to this question ( ) will greater medical inquiry ( x) won't exchange your innovations ( x) will contain a eating game ( x) will beat the proverbial deceased equus caballus For this question you're able to be: ( ) congratulated ( ) gently corrected ( ) reprimanded ( x) flogged ( x) drawn and Quartered ( x) subjected to three social darwanism ( x) sent a third grade biology textbook

Answer 7

We see a long strings of gradual variations in forms that vastly outnumber living creatures. We see divergence of forms over time. We do not "need" to be related, but it is the only explanation for the world we live in.

Answer 8

Similar bone structure. If you line the skulls up you can see the transitions.

Answer 9

Excellent source of information below.

Answer 10

Here's my question: Why the heck do people believe in the foolishness of evolution. Don't you think its a bit...offensive...to say that we came from a MONKEY?!?!? Good grief, they pick bugs off each other and eat them for Pete's sake. It's right there in the Bible that God made man in His form. We are special and different than animals. Just read it, it'll make sense. And there are too many flaws in evolution for it to be considered a scientific law that some stupid scientists consider it to be. All that with the Cambrian rock layer. What about that one scientist who found MILLIONS of simple all the way up to complex life forms in ONE layer that was supposed to be a layer full of only SIMPLE life forms (there is no such thing btw). People need to take in ALL the facts, from each side before they believe rubbish like evolution.