Well, I would first like to say that I wrote my essay and considered it to be correct. But then, as I grew in knowledge of evolution more and more, I learned some new things. As I looked over my essay, I saw things in there that I had used that were incorrect or not precisely correct, and so I updated it. So I'm just saying that if we do come across a point and I figure out I was mislead by my sources or just mislead, don't be surprised if I apolegize and change some things in my essay. This is a normal process for getting closer to the truth. Besides, we're all human, we all make mistakes, and none of us know everything about every subject there is, so when we learn more, we figure out how foolish we once were or that we were using wrong information. I hope you will understand this, so we may both learn something from this debate. Let the debate begin!
I would like you to copy your questions or write up some new ones, and put them under numbers in order, so that it will be easier to respond to, and less quoting will be neccessary. Ok?
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
Well, I would first like to say that I wrote my essay and considered it to be correct. But then, as I grew in knowledge of evolution more and more, I learned some new things. As I looked over my essay, I saw things in there that I had used that were incorrect or not precisely correct, and so I updated it.
I'm glad to see that you are open to suggestions.
So I'm just saying that if we do come across a point and I figure out I was mislead by my sources or just mislead, don't be surprised if I apolegize and change some things in my essay. This is a normal process for getting closer to the truth. Besides, we're all human, we all make mistakes, and none of us know everything about every subject there is, so when we learn more, we figure out how foolish we once were or that we were using wrong information. I hope you will understand this, so we may both learn something from this debate.
As you know, I disagree with most of the content of your essay. However, I only seek to ask questions and discuss the assertions made within, not to criticize you personally. I believe you are showing a very proper perspective in this post and must agree completely with your statement here. We both have reasons for our beliefs concerning this matter, and an unemotional examinaton of such beliefs can only lead to a better understanding of each one's position.
I think I should let you know that I also believe in God, just not in quite the same way as you do. What we primarily differ on here is the method and manner in which God relates to life in a general sense after creation, not how God created life.
I would also like to clarify that it is actually the Theory of Evolution rather than the concept of evolution we are discussing. After all, your essay, by being modified through time, is by definition, evolving. Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, I will use the term evolution to mean the Theory of Evolution as first comprehensively explained by Darwin, as I believe you also mean in the essay.
Let the debate begin!
I would like to examine your essay in the order you have created with this exception. First, I would like to discuss your sources. Many of the resources you cite in the essay are over 40 years old and much has changed in the scientific understanding of evolution in the meantime. This is particularly true in the case of theories concerning hominid evolution. Just to let you know, I intend to debate using current scientific conclusions, not conjectures from 40 years ago. Should you use discredited conjectures from the past to argue your position, I will point out what is being done.
Additionally, you appear to be relying upon a very narrow area of the relevant literature. This is somewhat understandable given the relative lack of scholarly material in support of your position. Just to be upfront and fair in this I believe you should know that as a librarian, I am a professional researcher of the written word and will use all resources available to me in this discussion, including evaluations concerning the quality of such information and public knowledge about the integrity of the source.
Please feel free to comment upon this post if desired. Within the week I intend to examine the essay in order by first discussing the concept and nature of transitional fossils.
quote:Additionally, you appear to be relying upon a very narrow area of the relevant literature. This is somewhat understandable given the relative lack of scholarly material in support of your position.
I used the internet for my research, so of course, when typing keywords into the search engine, I only typed up that which would support my thesis. To you this amount of sources may seem narrow, but I'm not a librarian like you, and I didn't want to spend lots of money to buy books for research, so I hope you understand. But I may want to purchase some books later and maybe even have a personal mini-library! :)
quote:I would also like to clarify that it is actually the Theory of Evolution rather than the concept of evolution we are discussing. After all, your essay, by being modified through time, is by definition, evolving. Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, I will use the term evolution to mean the Theory of Evolution as first comprehensively explained by Darwin, as I believe you also mean in the essay.
Yes, when I say, "evolution" I will be referring to macroevolution, not microevolution. And I think that we will mostly be discussing biological evolution, right?
Ok, whenever you get to it should be fine, but like we both said, we have our lives outside of forums, so it may be slow responding. But I hope we will clarify much information, and learn something while we are at it!
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
One of the best types of evidence we have now, of the past, are the fossil finds. The fossil finds are gathered from all over the world. Now if evolution really did occur, we would expect to find many intermediate fossils; the transitional fossils between one kind of an organism to the next. But that is not the case with the finds we have now. We do not find transitional fossils between the animals. Like between fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and to mammals; as would be the case if evolution really did occur. Because evolution was supposed to take millions of years to happen, we should have at least a couple thousand fossils to prove it, yet we don’t even have one, unquestionable, transitional fossil!
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache). o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus) o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus) o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes. o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels) o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus) o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus) o Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet. o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil. o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle. o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian. o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next) o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward. o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint. o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint. o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil. o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear). o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint. o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars. o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead. o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently. o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds). o "Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused. o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird. o Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds. o [note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
o Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails. o Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur o Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene) o Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters. o Aegyptopithecus, an early ape. o Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons. o Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes. o Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor. o Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal. o Homo habilis. o Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World. o Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.) o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning). o [I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
o Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent o Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers o [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
o Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land. o Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. o Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils. o Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth. o Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth. o Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale o [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
o Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth. o Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. o Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis. o Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears. o Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus. o Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.) Meanwhile back at the ranch, o Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.) o Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above) o Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets o Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas o Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats o Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats o Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
o Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet. o Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws. o Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
o [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.] o Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth o Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth. o [The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:] o Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests o Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser o Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth o Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger o Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers] o Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot" o 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus o 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus o 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus. o Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers) o Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth. o Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed o Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler. o Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras. o Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.] o Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs o Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs o Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout. o Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus. o Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos o Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
o Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle. o Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs. o Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels. o Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc. o Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.
Transitional fossils have been covered many times in this forum as well.
My purpose in this large pasting from the above source is to let you know that the vast majority of bioscientists and geoscientists believe, with reason, there are not only a few examples of transitional fossils but rather hundreds, if not thousands.
Of course, according to evolution, virtually all fossils are to some degree "transitional" as they exist at a point in time between what once was and what exists now, unless the fossil was at the terminal end of an extinct line. This is because all fossils exist as part of a continuous line that is discretly defined by points along that line, the points being individual or groups of fossils that show highly similar distinguishing characteristics. It really amounts to simply believing one can interprolate a line, curve, or series of lines from a series of points.
Under evolution, when one looks at transitional fossils in this manner, in order to deny the existence of transitional fossils one must deny the existence of all fossils.
One common assertion I have noticed from those who claim that there are no undisputed examples of transitional fossils is that each transition creates two gaps in the fossil record, as though every thing that ever lived should be continuously found in the fossil record. The concept that every thing that ever lived should leave a fossil does not appreciate the rarity of the fossilization process in the geologic record. However, the concept of interprolating continuous lines and curves from a series of points is considered mathematically valid. In fact, if one is not allowed to interprolate in such a manner from the data, far more than the sciences would be disallowed.
Taken to the extreme, it is as if I could not prove paternity because there are no transitional fossils between my daughter and myself.
So I guess in this vein, my question to you would be what disqualifies all the listed examples in general from being considered transitional? And if such fossils are not transitional, what is the explanation for their existance?
After the discussion of the above is concluded, I would next like to examine the remainder of the third paragraph of the essay concerning other aspects of transitional fossils.
PS - Sorry for the long cut n paste, I felt that if I chose to examine each example of every transitional fossil, we would never get past this point to examine the remainder of the essay. I do not forsee anything near this large a paste in the future.
Edited by anglagard, : interprolate not extrapolate!
I'm sorry, my computer is freezing up and going real slow right now. I won't be able to completely reply right now, I want to figure out what's wrong with my computer and try to fix it, so there may be delays between my replies, just so you know.
One quick word though, I think we forgot one IMPORTANT step,that is defining what we mean when we speak of "transitional fossils". I'll start with mine: What I would consider a transitional fossil, a real one that would mean anything to macroevolution, is a fossil that has evolving parts, like a scale/feather fossil, or bones that are evolving from one kind to another, more complex kind, partially evolving body parts, that look almost deformed, because they aren't complete, etc. This is what would be a real transitional fossil. But what many evolutionists seem to bring forth are fossils of creatures that have features from several animals, like a creature that is a reptile, bird, or mammal; and has features of a different kind of animal. But this is NOT a transitional. The platypus, for instance, has bird, mammal, and reptilian type features, this doesn't mean that birds, mammals, and reptiles evolved from it though! See? There are creatures with features from several animal groups, such as the platypus and others, but this does NOT make them transitional. Birds that have claws and teeth are still birds, just wilder, mostly extinct kinds, not a transitional from a reptile to a bird though. This is not correct to assume. A real transitional fossils should have evolving body parts, and we do not find this.
And also, you cannot prove that a certain fossilized creature evolved into another one just by looking at certain common features and putting the creatures on your evolution diagram. The fossil just tells you that a certain creature lived and grew and died eventually. The fossil does not, however, tell you that this creature evolved into another one, or that this creature lived a certain amount of years.
This is all for now, I will try to get back to the rest later, hopefully when my computer starts working properly again...
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
Ok, my computer is back to normal, I think I can still use this 10 or so year old computer, and squeeze some more life out of it...
Now, I would like to respond to the rest of your post, what I didn't get to respond to in the above post.
I see that in the eutherian mammals to primates part of that list, there were a few examples that my essay deals with and refutes, it's a little later on in my essay, the hominid part.
And I also saw some other examples like archaeopteryx and pakicetus that we could debate about, in fact, there's a topic in Biological Evolution about archaeopteryx where I replied.
quote:Of course, according to evolution, virtually all fossils are to some degree "transitional" as they exist at a point in time between what once was and what exists now, unless the fossil was at the terminal end of an extinct line.
Well then, those are some pretty wide goal posts for transitional fossils according to evolutionists... If you say that virtually all fossils are transitional, then what is the point of the argument? And the point of that list? I know you only meant to say this as a "by the way" kind of thing, but really, my definition of a transitional(in above post) and yours are very different. We first need to clarify what we speak of when we say "transitional." Otherwise this whole argument would be in vain. I say they have to have evolving parts, you say virtually all fossils are transitional, we'll never get anywhere this way. So I believe our first matter to settle is what we consider transitional and why.
quote:One common assertion I have noticed from those who claim that there are no undisputed examples of transitional fossils is that each transition creates two gaps in the fossil record, as though every thing that ever lived should be continuously found in the fossil record. The concept that every thing that ever lived should leave a fossil does not appreciate the rarity of the fossilization process in the geologic record. However, the concept of interprolating continuous lines and curves from a series of points is considered mathematically valid. In fact, if one is not allowed to interprolate in such a manner from the data, far more than the sciences would be disallowed.
But if you look at it this way, are you saying that the "links"(evolving creatures) between any two creatures and between the so called transitionals don't have to be existent, not even one? Because that's what we see in the fossil finds, we don't find any REAL transitionals, the creatures with evolving parts. All we find are complete creatures, just as Creationists predict.
quote:And if such fossils are not transitional, what is the explanation for their existance?
Diversity among God's amazing Creation.
quote:PS - Sorry for the long cut n paste, I felt that if I chose to examine each example of every transitional fossil, we would never get past this point to examine the remainder of the essay. I do not forsee anything near this large a paste in the future.
Oh, I don't mind, really, I used to do it a lot myself. I understand that we as humans cannot know everything off the top of our heads, and sometimes we just can't find the right words to get our message across, so I consider quoting ok, as long as the source is given.
Peace. May we continue to debate with peace and understanding.
"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown