Evolutionists?

Question

Charles Darwin himself realized that his theory was not supported by the fossil record, for he wrote in his Origin of Species:

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

C. Darwin, The Origin of Species

When Charles Darwin penned these words, he attributed this absence of transitional forms to what he called the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record. Since that time, however, literally millions of fossils have been found, but still the transitional forms are absent.

How can you possibly believe in gradual evolution given this evidence?

Intelligent responses appreciated.

All the evolutionists ever point to is a handful of highly debatable transitional forms (e.g., horses), whereas they should be able to show us thousands of incontestable examples.

Answer 1

The Universe is a continuum and the eternal process is evolution.

Answer 2

Because we know better. Darwin died a long time ago, and it wasn't really until much later that the real work on evolution began. All of those questions are answered now, and it would take little more than a search engine to figure that out. We have plenty of transitional fossils and the knowledge that 'fossils' are hard to come by. Absolutely ideal conditions must be met for the fossils to be preserved, that we may unearth them and study them. Moreover, we haven't exactly dug up the entire earth looking, either.
But in spite of that, we have all the evidence that is required to assert as fact that gradual evolution took place.

edit: Fine, I'll waste the points and edit the post to educate you better.
Look, first "How can you possibly believe in gradual evolution given this evidence?" That's not evidence. That's conjecture. Actually, it probably isn't conjecture--you're just saying that Darwin struggled with finding something that is--by its very nature--very hard to find. You claim we should have billions of uncontested examples--to that I have to answer "You have no idea what circumstances need to be met for a fossil to even be preserved."
Finally-- this really is the best site I've ever found on the subject--www.talkorigins.org. Spend some time there brushing up on the material, here's a direct link to what you were talking about--http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Come back when you're more prepared for the argument.

Answer 3

The quote you mention does not even mention an 'absence' of transitional forms. Darwin, like every person with even a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, understood that all fossils are transitional fossils.
The fossil record is indeed imperfect. The factors required for a fossil to form are incredibly rare.

So in answer to your question, I can continue to believe in evolution despite your 'evidence' because your entire argument is the product of willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty or a combination of the two.

Answer 4

No one's written about Stephen J. Gould's theory on punctuated equilibrium, so I thought I would toss that in. It basically says there aren't very many transitional forms because evolution occurs quickly when the habitat where these lifeforms lived changes quickly. The habitat can change due to climate changes, invasion of other competing or predating species and various other reasons. When the climate changes slowly so will the rate of evolution.

Also, fossilization occurs very rarely. I've heard that a person has a better chance winning a state lotto than having bones and other living matter to fossilize.

Answer 5

We did not have many fossils 150 years ago. Paleontology was in its infancy. And you lie when you say no transitions have since been found. In the last 150 years we have had many millions of fossils uncovered, showing clear transitions of a variety of forms (dinosaur to bird, arteriodactyl to whale, synapsid reptile to mammal, etc, etc) indeed we now have an unbroken chain of fossils all the way from Paleozoic amniote to modern human.

Just from fish to amphibian alone here are the fossil transitions
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.

Answer 6

One of the reasons animals like mice and insects such as fruit flies are studied so closely is because their lifespan is short and are, in part, to help prove evolution.

Seems to have panned out as scientists expected.

Also, you have to realize, Darwin was one of the first to put forth this theory. It is such a complex theory that the founding father is bound to have made mistakes.

Finally, on this subject, as far as the creationists and their proof, their evidence would fill a very small book. The evolutionists proof would fill a train.

======== on further notes, something I have posted about religion and common sense is this ============

My religion, the Golden Rule

I look at several things, then put that together with common sense.

Example:
The bible was not written down for generations. Then factor in translations, versions (King James Version, etc) and the game of telephone, the only logical conclusion, its folklore and smoke and mirrors.

That is why I have one religion, the Golden Rule.

That’s the one rule that is universal throughout all religions.

If that rule was adhered too, war would be rare, human suffering even rarer and mankind would be doing one hell of a lot better.

Instead, we make excuses not to follow the Golden Rule.

Example:
It is said; George Bush claimed that God told him to invade Iraq. Bin Laden claims God has instructed him to use terror. The contradictions, in both instances, makes both of them guilty of excusing their behavior that has resulted in thousands dead.

Here’s the kicker; for those believers and non believers, God and humanities basic tenet is the Golden Rule, all the rest of the rules follow that.

I wish people would understand the above. Life would be so much easier if we did. Instead, as Confucius said, “Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 7

Fossilization is rare, so it is to be expected that not every form that has even existed will be fossilized. Most creatures that die in the wild get scavenged. Gaps are not proof that intermediate species never existed. Passenger pigeons existed until about 200 years ago. There were billions of them. There are no known passenger pigeon fossils, but recent history records that they existed.

But there are plenty of transitional fossils.

In Darwin's day nothing was known about DNA, but we do know about it now, and it supports common descent even more strongly than the fossil record does.

Answer 8

Your claim that "the transitional forms are absent" is simply false. We are completely surrounded by transitional forms, and of course we ourselves are transitional forms.

In focusing on what Darwin thought, you're trying to judge science through a religious framework. Science is not about authority, and the nature of Darwin's beliefs is unimportant to our understanding of evolution. Discrediting Darwin does not discredit science.

Answer 9

As hard as Evolution is to understand it is MUCH easier to 'believe in' than the existence of an invisible man in the sky who watches everything everybody thinks, says and does, simultaneously, 24/7 and sends anyone who stuffs up to hell for all eternity.
Now THAT is so obviously delusional and man made.

A universe with a god would be completely different to one without. (RD)

Answer 10

I love these questions. They make me smile.

Darwin lived before the rise of modern paleontology. Known fossil records have changed dramatically since his lifetime.

And of course, there are plenty of 'transitional fossils'.