Are the people who don't believe in Transitional Fossils just too lazy to look them up? Or just unwilling?

Question

Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
Non-human apes to modern humans
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus

For all of you who say there aren't any - there you go. Feel free to do more research.

Evolution is a theory which can be proven. Grow up.

Answer 1

They don't understand how genetics works. The genetic information is stored in digital, not analog, form. A one-bit change in genetic code will make at least a small change in the descendant, 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, creating a change that is arbitrarily large. Hence, a purported missing transitional may simply never have existed. For a proof of the theory of evolution, please send me an e-mail address.

Answer 2

Evolution. Such a complex argument. However, you failed to provide proof. You listed a bunch of nice sounding names, but you did not provide one link. Can we just take your word for it? You just proved evolution. Bravo. Well take a look at this.
My issue with evolution is this... How does it occur at the molecular level? To see a change in us we need to have a correpsonding change in our genes. Say, for instance, that we have a mutation that leads to a beneficial change. How can this pass on to the next generation? Well it must occur in the sex cells (gametes). We will use the male as an example. Now when a man impregnates a female, he realeases millions of sperm cells. To pass a favorable mutation on to the next generation, the favorable mutation must be in a gene in that one sperm cell (out of millions remember) that penetrates the egg and fertilizes it. The baby would then carry that gene and could pass it on to succeeding generations. Look at it on a more global perspective. This one individual has just inherited a beneficial mutation that is going to change mankind for the better. One person. Keep this in mind. This person has children. Thus, he passes on the gene. Then those children grow up and have children. Thus passing on the gene. And this occurs for "millions" of years. There is not sufficient proof that we have been around for such an extended period of time. But that is not my point. Here I am assuming millions of years. You would have to agree that this benefial mutation originated from one person. What are the chances of this same beneficial mutation occuring in the same gene of other people? Slim to none. Yes there are regions of DNA that are thought to be more susceptible to mutations, but let's be realistic here.
Now let's take a look at Adam and Eve. People wonder how could two people populate the earth. Well, how could one person have a mutation that benefited society as we know it today? Both are equal in probability. It is the same concept in each.
Evolution is, and always will, be a theory and not a scientific law. As long as there are plausible explanations to deny it's validity, then it must remain a theory. Looking at it from the molecular point of view, rather than a macromolecular perspective, makes evolution look even more unlikely.

Answer 3

Evolution dogma states that the fossil record proves evolution. But it doesn't. For one thing, the earliest fossils are from the Cambrian period, which has the most fossils. For evolution to be true, we'd start out with fewer and then get more fossils later! But real record is just the opposite. One of the earliest fossils is the trilobite. You would think it would be very simple since it is so early, but it has a complicated eye. How could that be? The eye is comprised of very complicated parts where some don't make sense without the other parts. Once again, why would one section evolve by itself when it needs others to make it work?

Scientist don't agree on fossils. Some say dinosaurs are lizards, others that they are birdlike creatures who evolved into birds. At least that's different from the normally simplistic evolution view that everything just evolved into a bigger version, like they used to say about horses. There was once a horse evolution poster that you can't find anymore because even the most fanatic evolutionists have disavowed it as being too embarrassing and fraudulent. A few years ago one dreamy digger announced he found "faint lines" in a fish fossil that "could be finger bones." I had to stare in amazement at the liberal media trumpeting of evolution "science" at work. Those faint fossil lines could be anything! Give me a break!

Fake fossils and fossil interpretations are rampant. With no links between species in the fossil record, shady paleontologists and evolution crackpots have gone overboard in their frenetic attempts to hoax the public. From Piltdown Man to "Lucy" missing link hoaxes abound through history. They really want that "human" missing link - bad enough to lie and cheat to get it. Piltdown Man was an out and out fraud. "Lucy" was just some old monkey bones, not even found together. The knee joint was discovered miles away from the skull fragments. That's quite a stretch!

Answer 4

You can't look up what is not there.

Everything on your list belongs on the list of where you wash the following:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Artiodactyla

Family: Suidae

Genus: Sus

Pastor Art

Answer 5

This idea that a fundamental similarity in structures is due to common descent is called homology. But this still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation.

Answer 6

That's a very impressive list. The only thing wrong with it is that it is fraught with unproved presuppositions. It's like the Lucy fossil (Australopithecus) where people who have a predisposition to assume that macro-evolution is a fact assume that a fossil of a semi-erect chimpanzee went on to become a human being.

There are semi-erect apes alive today and no one seems to think that one day they are going to evolve into a superior species like a human being. Finding a fossil of an animal that has gone extinct and claiming that this is a "transitional fossil" is a bunch of hot air based on biased and unproved presuppositions.

What's really amazing is how a scientist can find a triangular rock that appears to have regular marks on it and be certain that it is an arrowhead that an intelligent human being designed and made. Yet when they dig up bones that contain a DNA code so complex that in the 21st century we have nothing like it and can barely understand it they attribute that artifact to chance. Doesn't there seem to be a logical disconnect there somewhere?

Answer 7

You're hilarious. There are no transitional fossils, only transitional HOPEFULS in your list. They simply are not what evolutionists claim. Maybe you should read the data that blows holes through evolution. Then, you might see, macroevolution is an impossibility, and the science of it is not science at all, but rather SPECULATION. Learn the difference.

The problem is, we cannot debate with people who only look at the CENSORED version of the scientific data, while we are looking at ALL the scientific data, and we refuse to ignore the data that debunks macroevolution.

Answer 8

It is easier for people to out of hand claim their nonexistence. In this case, I think we can safely reject the null hypothesis of "Transitional Fossils don't exist".

Answer 9

They simply deny that they are transitional. "Oh no, that's not a half fish half land animal, it's a fully formed fishwalker."

It's a semantic fortress around their beliefs.

Answer 10

Hey, I love it--Transitional Fossil, that's me! Think I'll use that as my next avatar name