Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?

Well, the evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record is mostly based on speculative interpretations. This is because the fossil record does not realy support evolution. Since the fossil record never shows a clear step by step evolution, why would any body assume that there was evolution in the first place. Similarities among species is not enough to be evidence for evolution. IN fact, this tree is what evolutionists assume to be true. This is what Darwin hoped. However, the fossil record does not reveal that all species emerged from a single ancestor. IN fact, it shows that the vast majority of organisms phyla (whether in sea, on land or in the air) emerged all of a sudden and fully formed without ancestral species to show a clear gradual evolution. This is still based on the speculation that life is a tree. YOu cannot collect several "branches" together and assume that they evolved. Since the line of hominids is deceptive and does not clearly indicate a gradual evolution, any assuptoin of human evolution would be based on just speculations and bias and not on solid scientific evidence.

So you're saying that the fossil record is not complete and fossils are rare. This is the same old and desperate argument that Darwin used before. Now the fossil record is almost complete and provides a huge wealth of information about living species emerging all of a sudden with no evolutionary past. Many evolutionists admit this fact.It is not impossible for soft tissues to survive up to today. The Burgess Shale fossil bed in Canada contains thousands of organisms with fossilized soft tissues because they were mostly covered with mud and had no contact with oxygen. Again, this fossil bed shows no evolutionary past. The Camberian explosion has established more than 60 different phyla. This means tens of thousands of species that exploded into life fully formed. Just finding few fossils that are so-called precamberian does not invalidate the Camberian explosion. We dont know the validity of these fossils or if they realy belong to pre camberian eras. But there are no clear lines in the fossil record because it shows that many phyla emerged suddenly. A famous British paleontologist Derek V. Agar approves this fact: “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.AS Darwin said, if his evolution theory is true, there should be numberless transitional forms and that they should still exist today. However, the fossil record invalidates evolution. This is because all species that exist today and in the fossil record, are clearly independent of each other and are classified seperately. The so called transitional forms are very limited and most (if not all) of them are mistakelnly thought to be transitional but they are not.If you say the Camberian explosion is invalid, how can 60 phyla emerge in a very short time period (geologically speaking) and fully formed and independent of each other with no evolutionary ancestral species? If there is a gradual evolution, it should take billions of years of evolution to form 60 phyla that include thousands of species.

Derek V Agar is one out of many others who admitted the fact of Camberian explosion. Take Richard Dawkins for instance, an evolutionist extremist. He quoted that life forms in the Camberian era seem to be planted on Earth as if they have no evolutionary past.

OK! lets make this clear. The fossil record is full of gaps that invalidate evolution. I am not denying any evidence I see, in fact, evolutionist ignore the gaps and fossil evidence against evolution and make up imaginary theories to cover the embarassing lack of evidence.It is also important to note that phyloginy is not a great supporter of evolution. These phyloginies are based on similarity in appearance. However, even though there are organisms that look alike, there are vast differences between the chemical and the proteins makeup. For example, there are different genetic codes that code for similar structures. If evolutionists were to make a phyloginy based on proteins structures and rRNA in living organisms, the phylogenic tree will collapse and become messed up and confused linking two or more organisms that dont even look alike in shape.Lets look for example to the pentadactyl structure that has appeared in two separate times each independatley of the other (anthracosaurs and amphibians). What is more interesting is that different genetic codes in the two different types of creatures code for the same pentadactyl structure.If evolutionists are proud of the similarity in living things and consider it evidence for evolution, this similarity collapses when comparing livig things in the chemical makeup, in particular the protein and rRNA makeup.Even thought the Cambrian period lasted for 5 million years, this time period is too short compared to the age of life on Earth. Most importantly, it is too short in evolutionary terms to form 60 different phyla. Would the theory of punctuated equlibriam say that somehow these thousands of species evolved very rapidly? Any explanation to show an evolutionary process in the Cambrian explosion would be more like a fantasy tail of imagination and not a scientific theory. The same is true for the entire fossil record. If is wasnt full of gaps, there wouldnt be the theory of PE in the first place. But PE was made up to try to cover the gaps in the fossil record.It is very simple, if evolution is true there should exist millions of transitional links in the fossil record. But all we find is millions of Gaps. You cannot desparately ignore all the gaps and stick to few fossils that are "thaught" to be transitional.If you see no evidence for creation and design in nature, then you should see an eye doctor. Every thing is intellegently designed and balanced in flawless order. How can random chances creat such order. If you dont believe in creation, it is not enough to just say that creation is wrong. Instead you should show your belief regarding the beginning of life on Earth and try to support it. How can anybody ignore creation and believe that a cell can be the result of totally random chance, and then all the diverse life forms and order in nature emerged as a result of a chain of millions of unconcious and blind chances. Where is the logic in someone who believes in chance as being a super creative force?Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

See how evolutionist interprate the fossil record in the way they want. IN previous posts some evolutionist explained the absense of evident fossils by saying that the fossl record is incomplete. NOw you say that it is not spotty and it completely shows gradual evolution. Evolutionists are contradicting each other because of their different interpretations and speculations about fossils. Do you fill the fossil record whenever you want and make it look empty whenever you want just to support your interpretations? Variations but not evolution. I can draw a tree of my family and this tree is full of Humans only. But the tree of life mixes up different creatures wherever evolutionists see fit. Probably the reason why you make such unfounded claim is that YOU have a lack of knowledge about fossils. OR maybe because you only search in evolutionist web sites that are full of false claims and misinterprated fossils. You are saying "could it be", well it could be not. If you quit your evolutionary speculations about the fossil record you should also take into account other possibilities.
But you still admit the huge amount of fossils in the Cambrian explosion. How do you explain the suddent emergence of fossils as you said "all of a sudden"?You already said that fossils show patterns of life. This is why evolutionists make phylogenic trees. Evolutionists use fossils to indicate patterns of life. Well how come non of them pays attention to the obvious emrgence of more that 60 phyla in the fossil record in a short period of time (geologically speaking)? You admitted that there is a huge number of fossils in the Cambrian explosion. How come this does not indicate any pattern of life for evolutionists and they even try to refute it, while at the same time, they make tons of interpretations and speculations and imaginary scenarios based on few fossils that are "thaught" to support evolution. How come evolutionists ignore any patterns regarding the Cambrian explosion and at the same time claim that they base their evidence on the fossil record.About the picture you posted, there are thousands of diagrams (either imaginary or based on speculation) regarding human evolution. It is obvious that most of the skulls do not belong to humans, they belong to either apes or chimps. I am certain that many of these skulls have been already refuted by scientific evidence that clearly showed that they belong to apes. You could draw hundreds of diagrams based on skulls but remember that they are all imaginary. Biased? You are talking as if evolutionists are not biased. Where is that solid scientific evidence? Evolutionists always say that there is evidence but when you ask them about it they start making imaginary scenarios and interprete the fossil record the way they like just to fit in thier family trees. The reproduction you mentioned does create variations, but you cannot find species turning to different species as a result of variations, so you should not use variations to prove evolution. Ans where is that logical inference you're refering to? Is it the speculations about fossils or the believe that all life forms emerged on Earth by random chances?

I keep seeing evolutionists showing off different diagrams of sequences made of fossils to show transitions. Remember, this is still your own speculations and interpretations of the fossil record.For example, look at the bat. It is a flying mammal with fur similar to rodents and wings similar to birds. If bats go extinct and a bat fossil is found after million years in the future. Evolutionists will say that there was a rodnet (could be rat, squeril, or termite) or any small animal with fur that million years ago (which is our time) has evolved into a flying creature and then evolved into a bird. And this was the origin of birds. Then they would publish it in their books and consider it a logical evidence. However, we know in our time that rodents are not evolving into bats and bats are not evolving into different birds. But the evolutionists' speculations lead them to such belief. It might sound logical but it is not necessarily true. This type of speculation is applied on all fossils.Similarities can be deceptive and you cannot heavily rely on them and consider them evidence. For the same hypothese that you make about the fossil record, others will make their own hypotheses around the world. How can you even make such a claim in the 21st century? Darwin (with his limited knowledge about cells and his lack of knowledge about genetics) assumed that variations have no limit and that variations would eventually lead to evolution. However, Mendel's genetics have showed that variations are limited and cannot lead to the formation of new species. Modern genetic studies have showed that variations within species is limited to the gene pool of the population and cannot provide "forign" traits from other orgaisms in order for them to evolve. These discoveries have conclusively proved that no matter how many generations pass, a horse (for instance) will keep breading horses and you will not find a newborn horse with wings! You can have as many combinations as you like within a population of organisms but these are limited to the gene pool as I mentioned above. Well, whenever you encounter any example of fossils you will explain it in a hypothesis (pure imagiantion)that sound logical to you because it is based on your speculations. Ok! and you are willing to base all your hypotheses and believes on few fossils with soft tissues that you refer to as "precambrian" and ignore the tons of hard fossils that show rapid and enormous diversities in a short period of time which cannot be explained by an evolutionary process. (unless evolutionists make up a theory that the Cambrian explosion was 1 billion years old, since they seem to be very good at making up such imaginary theories to explain things they cant explain in reality) Which is still an imaginary speculation that you invented when you said that at the Cambrian time there were only hard fossils while you have no way of proving such a claim. Ofcourse they remarkably resemble each other besause they are all skulls of apes. Claiming that such skulls resemble humans is based on speculations. It is like taking a skull of a dinosaur and caliming it to be the skull of a crocodile that could walk on two! Yes of course you can, if you assume that these "laboratory conditions" existed millions of years ago to evolve species by reproduction. Again, you're elaborating further on reproduction and variations and they dont cause evolution into different organisms. Unless you chose to defy genetics and claim that they do!So if you can make any more imaginary speculations regarding the fossil record, make sure to publish them and call them "scientific". Or it would be better to turn them into some japanese animes to be told as bed-time fantasy stories to kids.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Realy? so does that mean that in the future we will evolve into X-men or ninja turtles?

Did I ever say that they are identical? The intention was to show similarity. There are differences between the wings of birds and bats but they are both designed for flight. However, back to the scenario, evolutionists would hypothesize that such differences were overcome by mutations since they already claim that all life forms diversified initially because of mutations. Where is the logic in claiming that birds evolved from reptiles? Since you quickly recognized the large physiological differences between a wing of a bat and that of a bird, you said that evolutionists would not claim that birds evolved from bats because of these differences. However, evolutionists failed to see the termendous physiological differences between reptiles and birds and thats why they claim that they have evolved from each other. The vast differences between reptiles and birds will render any attempt of transition ineffective. Even random mutations are no way able to account for such evolution. But evolutionists are only willing to make a huge leap over this gap and just hope that evolution of birds from reptiles somehow occured without being able to explain how it happened. While daydreaming about transitional fossils for this scenario.Now lets say that a mutation gave a reptile something that looks like a wing (replacing hands)in a primitive form that could not fly. This would not be considered advantagous to a reptile used to crawl or use its hands for other tasks. Such a handicap would be immediatly eliminated by nature. This is just one out of many other obstacles in the way of such transition. Mutations are not super changes that could cross these obstacles and provide advantages to a reptile use to live and function on land. First of all, before you quote any thing to me from the bible know that I am not christian. Second, if bats were birds in the bible, apes are humans in evolution. If there is no logic in the first claim, there is no logic in the second either. Hybridization is not common in nature. Mostly introduced by human intervention and not purely by natural effects. However, hybrids have no advantages that can aid in evolution. The hybrid zygote either dies before maturation or results in an infertile offspring. Ok! how is that related to the point? There are no land animals with more than 4 limbs in reality. It is only found in evolution were evolutionsts claim fish with no limbs gaining legs, reptiles losing limbs, limbs turning to wings, legs turning to tails, and other fantasies. True! with only 26 letters you get thousands of english words. But you dont find english words with chinese or indian letters. Similarly, populations vary in their own letters but do not aquire new letters from other languages. Because if they do, the word would not make sense with forign letters. But evolution is like putting a letter from another language randomly in an english word giving it a new meaning! Which is not realistic. Im not willing to hear stories or evolution fantasies. However, do you know that the so called human evolution is not a tree of gradual change. It is rather a "foggy" bush with either humans or apes and nothing in between except speculations or false links. (more details will be provided later). NOt true, the cambrian explosion is like a rapid diversification at the base of the evolutionary tree and not in the branches. Most of the groups of organisms we know today have been established at the cambrian. Any claim that the cambrian explosion did not possess vast diversity is untrue. More than 60 phyla have been established at the cambrian explosion. 60 and not 2 or 3. This very old era was very diverse which alone invalidates the claim of "the younger the layer, the more complex". This is what I mean, your hypothesis that hard parts developed to allow for more fossils is unproven and speculative. It is just to cover the lack of explanation and evidence. Just claiming that hard parts developed doesnot make it true because it is just a claim and no more. There are no fossils to show how a complex creature in the cambrian evolved from unicellular life forms. The abrupt appearance and disappearance of certain species cannot be explained by evolution but in only one phrase: "the fossil record is incomplete!". How can a cold-blooded reptile become a warm-blooded bird and with a much higher metabolism? I would like to see an answer with no usual fantasies but with a real scientific explanation. There is still a human intervention involved. Otherwise nature doesnot act by itself to form new species. The only speciation evolutionists refer to is when calling a descendant of a fish (for instance)from the hundridth generation a new species even though it is still a fish. Here is something that clearly defies genetics: the myth of the 99% similarity between humans and chimps. This is not true. This exaggerated estimation was based on an experiment in the 1980s whereby only a group of protien were compared and not the entire genomes. These protiens where in humans and chimps where found to be 99% similar. However, those are some of the most basic and necessary proteins found in almost all organisms and not only in humans and chimps.As you mentioned, we share genetic similarity with the bannana but that does not mean we are descendants of the bannanas. Similarly, we share other similarities to worms, insects, and other plants. Therefore, relying on genetic similarity does not cleary show you evolutionary lines of descent. NO giant robots such as transformers. But evolution has even more unrealistic living transformers.In reality, the fossil record is actually full of gaps otherwise evolutionists wouldnt be still digging all over the world in search of imaginary trasitional links. Also, we should have seen countless transitionals both living and fossolized. But every species is cleary identified and isolated from others.Here is an important fact. Evolutionists believe that they could fill the fossil record with transitionals by claiming that all species are considered transitional forms. However, this is a distortion of the actual meaning of transitional. A transitional link should be an intermeidiate species (in between) two other different species that shows mixed traits of both species. There are no such species in the fossil record. That is why evolutionist started placing a distinct species (ie. archaepteryx) between 2 other very distinct species of reptiles and birds, even though archaepteryx is not a transitional link with a mix of reptiles and birds because it is an identified and distict species by itslef.Note: dont bother reply because im leaving the thread and wont be available to read replies. Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.