This seems to fit in this thread, if not, someone direct me to an appropriate one.
Can someone answer a few questions for me? I used to believe in ToE until I was challenged to provide actual physical proof of the evidence for evolution. Despite the constant claims of unending evidence,I am unable to find any. Having lost faith in the theory. ID seems very appealing to me.
I have been following a few of the threads here and I went to the Talk Origins site as suggested. Unfortunately I wasn’t very satisfied with the information provided as in the following examples, which admit there is very little evidence, if any: Taken from TALK. ORIGINS
The next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago (Gingerich and others 1983). Although it is known only from fragmentary skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales
Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)
When the synapsids are investigated further it seems as if there is serious disagreement as to what they actually are:
Evolutionists acknowledge that they cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals (Carroll, p. 398). That is why Roger Lewin (1981), summarizing a scientific conference on the matter, wrote: The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.
The best Carroll (p. 410) can say is that [i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet (emphasis mine). However, as Carroll (p. 392) points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.
This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll (p. 392) writes, Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic. There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of advanced cynodonts from the Upper Triassic (Carroll, p. 624). It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.
The following is from another website claiming to provide proof of transitional forms, by GR Morton.
378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508).
[Did someone say something about the scientific method?]
-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)
368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod. This creature also shows the coronoid fangs of the Panderichthys but they were also smaller than the panderichthyid fangs. Daeschler notes that this animal also has the parasymphysial fans of a tetrapod. (Daeschler, 2000, p. 307)
As you can see each example is based on very little fragmentary remains or the critical areas are missing. One of the examples gives a mandible as evidence of a complete genus. Much similar verbiage was printed about the coelacanth and it was almost universally accepted by evolutionists as having transitional features until live ones were discovered and dissected, revealing none of the previously known proto limbs .My question about fossil evidence is then: Does any verifiable fossil evidence exist for transitional forms?
I also noted that the Talk. Origins site stated that there were very few pre Cambrian fossils, yet most of the literature I have found states that the pre Cambrian is rich with fossils, which is true?
™ Version 4.2