Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

Ah, OK, so you are arguing against the Creationist claim.Did not understand that to be the case before.I am not a Creationist, so I do not disagree that A. is an ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens

I am an athesist just like you.but I think I am going to be a muslim.muslims are not terrorists as I thought they have moral teachings and they are kind people what is your opinion. pop, we try to stay on topic around here and this post has NOTHING to do with the thread.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

But I read that many transitional forms became myths as.coelacanth in fish evolution.
.archaeoraptor/archeopteryx in bird evolution.
.pakicetus/ambulocetus in whale evolution
.the land reptile euparkerio.
.the lower permian reptile arraescelis.

quote:

---

But I read that many transitional forms became myths as

​

.coelacanth in fish evolution.
.archaeoraptor/archeopteryx in bird evolution.
.pakicetus/ambulocetus in whale evolution
.the land reptile euparkerio.
.the lower permian reptile arraescelis.
But I read that many transitional forms became myths as
.coelacanth in fish evolution.
.archaeoraptor/archeopteryx in bird evolution.
.pakicetus/ambulocetus in whale evolution
.the land reptile euparkerio.
.the lower permian reptile arraescelis.

---

As far as I know these are all still considered transitional forms in Biology.

Well do you want me to start explaining why the basic transitional forms turned out to be not such thing.

Bearing in mind that "transitional forms" do not have to be direct ancestors, can you explain why archaeopteryx is not considered a valid transitional form ?And please show that this is the consensus of the scientific community rather than the opinions of creationists (who refuse to accept that there are transitional forms).

There was an idea tha archaeopteryx can not fly properly because all the discovered fossils of this specimen the sternum was missing in these dicoveries but what was a surprise is the seventh fossil of the Archaeopteryx which was dicovered in 1992 had a sternum (rectangular)one so the old argument around archaeopteryx was totaly invalidated by this discovery.The journal Nature described the dicovery as follows
( the recently discovered seventh specimen of the archaeopteryx preserves a partial rectangular sternum long suspected but never previously documented.this attests to its strong flight muscles.)Nature vol.382 august 1/1996 p.401.This discovery invalidated that archaeopteryx couldnot fly perfectly.the structure of the archaeopteryx feathers (asymmetcric)is also an evidence that archaeopteryx was a normal warm blooded bird which could fly.The point of the warm blooded bird is contrary to the dinosaurs which are cold blooded.An old idea on the archaeopteryx teeth said that it was related to reptiles .Any way after checking the fossil record some birds during the archaeopteryx time and after it had teeth these are categorised with (birds with teeth) .
The point here is that the archaeopteryx and other birds teeh are totally different from therepod dinosaurs .THe three ornithologists L.D Martin /J.D Stewart/ K.N Whetstone observed that the archaeopteryx teeth and other similar birds have constricted bases and expanded roots while the theropod dinosaurs haveserrated teeth with strait roots .IN the archaeopteryx there are claws in its wings there are living species now have claws as TOURACO/HOATZIN.HEY IF YOU THOUGHT THAT I AM A CREATIONIST THEN YOU ARE WRONG BUT SOME TRANSITIONAL FORMS WERE TURNED TO BE NOT SUCH THINGS SO WE NEED TO RETHINK OF SOME OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS NOW.

None of your points indicate that archaeopteryx is not a transitional. Nor that the scientific consensus agrees with your view.

quote:

---

HEY IF YOU THOUGHT THAT I AM A CREATIONIST THEN YOU ARE WRONG BUT SOME TRANSITIONAL FORMS WERE TURNED TO BE NOT SUCH THINGS SO WE NEED TO RETHINK OF SOME OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS NOW

---

I think that your rejection of genuine transitioanl fossils speaks for itself.{Added in edit}
I beleive that this is your source:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html
It makes the same points in the same order.
It is a Moslem Creationist siteEdited by PaulK, : New information.

Interestingly what Martin, et al. specifically say is From THE ORIGIN OF BIRDS: STRUCTURE OF THE TARSUS AND TEETH.So while the teeth may not resemble theropod teeth they do resemble the dentition of other extant reptiles, the fact that the avian dentition is derived hardly refutes the other theropod like features of Archaeopteryx. So is your objection specifically to grouping Archaeopteryx with theropods?TTFN,WK

pop,Perhaps if you define "transitional fossil" as expected by the ToE, you'll see your problem.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

oh yes I am rejecting that it has relation ship of therpods.But during the archaeopteryx time or before there were no reptiles having this teeth structure.Any way in the same time of the archaeopteryx there was living a bird called confuciusornis it has no teeth at all and modern birds anatomy.

There were no crocodiles with crocodilian teeth when archeopteryx was extant? Seriously? Care to provide any evidence of that quite substantial claim?Be that as it may though the fact that a bird like transitional has feature like a bird and not like a reptile does not make it less transitional if it still has distinctly reptilian features.The fact that avians have a derived form of dentition distinct from the theropods just means that dentition is not one of the reptilian features archaeopteryx displays. This is totally irrelevant unless you are using a twisted concept of transitionals, which seems to be looking like the case. No one is claiming that all moderns birds are descended from archaeopteryx so why should a contemporaneous bird with modern anatomy be considered detrimental to Archaeopteryx's position as a transitional?TTFN,WK

confuciusornis is acreature with the following features.the same age as archaeopteryx.
.its beak and feathers share the same features as modern birds.
.the pygostle.SO THE IDEA OF THE IDEA THAT THE ARCHAEOPTERYX IS THEPRIMITIVE ANCESTOR OF BIRDS IS WRONG.

Just as well that idea has no relevance to its status as a transitional fossil then.TTFN,WK

Past the 300 post mark. Quite literally end of the discussion, but it need not be - propose a new topic if anyone wants to continue discussing the main topic or some subtopic.

---