On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

What criteria are you using to determine if a fossil is intermediate or not? Evidence please. No one claims that they came from each other. What we claim is that they share a common ancestor. They would all be found in the same strata since they are all living at the same time, so they would not be said to be a fossil sequence.

my point is that creatures do not have anatomical evidence of having once different types of bodies showing a different lifestyle.
Yet if evolution was true they should be crawling with bits and pieces.
Further, evolution does use the marine mammals true anatomical vestiges as evidence for evolution.
They say Aha here is prrof of creatures changing their bodies and so proof evolution is true.
In fact it makes the opposite point. The rarity of it demands by like reasoning that evolution didn't take place in 99% of creatures.
Its about lines of reasoning.
Further its a good point about how creatures that actually change to have pieces showing it. Cause it happened.

Yes, they do. The human vermiform appendix is a vestige left over from an ancestor that was an herbivore. I can point to an anatomical feature in any species that evidences their ancestral lineage. They aren't that hard to find. I named one for humans in this very post. I can also point to the recurrent laryngeal nerve found in all tetrapods that evidences their ancestral origin in fish. Do you want more examples?

Take a few anatomy, osteology, and paleontology classes then check these out. You'll find just the evidence you are denying (click to enlarge):

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well, for example, all mammals possess vitellogenin (egg yolk) genes; only echidnas and duck-billed platypuses actually use them, of course. In non-monotremes they survive as vestigial pseudogenes. So that's 99.82% of mammal genera at a single stroke, with vestigial features in every cell in their bodies (except red blood cells, which have no nuclei). Yes there are. If you wish to deny that they are transitional forms that's another thing, but that they are morphologically intermediate is unquestionable. They therefore constitute evidence for an evolutionary transition.If you have any evidence for your saltation hypothesis now would be a great time to produce it.

And your point is completely wrong. See post #140.All the evidence shows that animals are made of of ancestral bits and pieces. But for very very very obvious reasons not all of these bits and pieces are vestigial.

This is not correct. They are crawling with bits and pieces.Mammals have hair and mammary glands, that are bits and pieces that were inherited from their ancestral lineage back to the first Mammals.Mammals have a skeletal system, and a respiratory system, and a circulatory system, and a digestive system, and a nervous system and these, and everything else, are the bits and pieces that were inherited from their ancestral lineages.All the animals alive today fit into nested hierarchies of traits (bits and pieces) that they inherited from their ancestral lineages.It is those bits and pieces that we use to study and classify all living creatures. And we have millions of fossils that also fit into those nested hierarchies and show us how those lineages have changed and branched over the history of life on our planet.You are making wild pronouncements that are based on no evidence at all and that, in fact, totally ignores all the evidence that has been gathered and studied by countless scientists for the last couple centuries.I learned this in 7th grade science, where were you?

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

I think what you mean to say is that creatures do not have anatomical evidence that their very distant ancestors were anatomically different, and of course you are wrong. Mammals, for one, all share the same basic body plan of four legs (or two arms and two legs), four feet (or two hands and two feet), a head, a jaw, teeth, mammary glands, etc., etc., etc., yet all the species of mammals are different. And if you examine the fossil record you'll find the fossils of some of the creatures intermediate between modern forms. If evolution never happened there could be no reasonable expectation that such fossil forms would exist, and yet they do.About these "bits and pieces" you keep talking about, it seems that you must think that, for example, for a protohorse to evolve into the modern horse that the protohorse's clawed paws had to become vestigial and replaced by a new hoof structure. And that if the modern horse actually evolved from some protohorse then we should be able to see vestigial paw structures inside the foot of a modern horse. It certainly sounds like this is how you think evolution works, with your claims that we should find all sorts of bits of pieces of distant ancestors.Vestigiality doesn't deserve the attention it gets, but it is very true that some structures do, because of changing environmental circumstances, find that their original purpose no longer exists. They can't suddenly disappear. What happens is that they're gradually selected against, often becoming smaller and retaining less of their original but now unused capabilities. This happened to the human appendix and to the whale's and snakes legs.But what is much more common is that one structure evolves into a new or modified structure. No bits and pieces of the old structure are left because they've all become incorporated into the new structure. The hooves of the modern horse evolved from the paws and claws of some ancient protohorse. Bones from the reptilian jaw became the middle-ear bones of mammals. There are not bits and pieces left over because they've all become incorporated into new structures with modified and sometimes completely novel functions. The opposable thumb of apes evolved from earlier mammals with no opposable capability, while the panda evolved a "thumb" from a wrist bone, and there are no bits and pieces to be left over. Of course vestigial organs exist, they're part of the evolutionary history of life, but they are dwarfed in sheer volume by the co-opting of existing body parts for modified or new functions, which is far, far, far more common than vestigiality.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi Percy, Actually we do. In one toe the nail has grown into the hoof and the intermediate bones to the ankle have become elongated and thickened to support the weight of the horse on the one toe. The other toes have become vestigial or disappeared, but they are still between the toe end and the ankle.I use this reference due to the sheer irony of it:
http://www.bible.ca/...-fraud-horse-fetal-vestigial-toes.gif

quote:

---

Evolutionist argument: This diagram shows the fetal development of a horse foot. (a) is the foot at 6 weeks. Note, there are three toes. (b) is the foot at 8 weeks. The middle toe now dominates. (c) is the foot at 5 months. The middle toe is now the hoof. So, modern horses have vestigial extra toes, which are too small to be easily noticed.

​

Evolutionist argument rebutted: These structures are not vestigial but perform a critical function of assisting the horse to run with balance. These additional side structures not only reinforce the leg for strength, but aid in balance. Think of them as laminates that strengthen the leg in the same way the layers of plywood makes it stronger than unlamintated wood. The three sections are fused together in such a way as to resist breaking and increase torsion strength of the leg of the horse. Without such, the horse would break its leg more often.

---

Of course that "critical function" was not the original support function of the toes, so yes they are vestigial, and this secondary adapted function is why they have not disappeared.Amusingly you can see that the fetus has three toes (of the original five, two having disappeared in earlier evolutionary stages (that are easily linked to this by fossils) with the central one elongated slightly more than the other two) forming a three toed foot, and that these toes become reduced and redirected during development until the two side ones become splints in the final foot.Here's another resource:

quote:

---

To illustrate how the horse foot changed through time, a human hand can be used for comparison.
Note how the distance of the wrist bones from the ground changes.

​

​

5 toes (ancestral mammals) ​

4 toes on ground (eohippus stage) ​

4 toes, 3 toes on ground, 1 raised above (Epihippus stage) ​

3 toes (Mesohippus stage) ​

1 toe (Equus stage) ​

---

The added height gained by this adaptation increases the overall leg length, thus giving the horse better running legs, while still allowing it to fold up small to jump over obstacles.And another:
Page not found - Suite 101

quote:

---

If you were trying to convince someone of the theory of evolution, the horse would be a great example to use. Fossil remains of prehistoric horses provide one of the best documented examples of the evolutionary changes of an animal species. And if the fossil remains are not convincing enough, we can look at the anatomy of the modern horse and find possible evidence that the horse once had toes.
...
It is the three toes of the horse’s ancestors Mesohippus and Miohippus (which existed about 25-40 million years ago) that are most universally acknowledged in the anatomy of modern horse. Between the knee and fetlock joint (equivalent to your ankle) is the cannon bone. On either side of the cannon bone hang two useless bones that are called the splint bones. They are frequently injured and the resulting hard lump is called a splint. We will discuss splints more in future articles on leg and hoof problems. It is generally accepted that these bones are what remains of the two smaller toes of Mesohippus. Those of us who have had deal with horses popping splints wish evolution would hurry up and get rid of them all together.

---

Looks like that "Evolutionist argument rebutted" fall flat on it's face. They are vestigial rather than totally gone because they now serve a secondary function, and that poorly, because it is not their original purpose. This is what vestigial means.The splints are vestigial toes that serve no support function - their original function - for the modern horse. And the horse "splint" toes.Enjoy.ps -- Scientific Evidence for Creation Home page
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm-- another creationist site to add to the creationist fraud thread. So many fallacies on one page.Edited by RAZD, : added for clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

I didn't want to get into the additional complexity of "some of the paw became vestigial and some didn't." If you present too much detail you lose the audience. Accuracy and brevity are often incompatible, but then the same is true of detail and clarity. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both.--Percy

All that is found are creatures in stone. I say they are not intermediate to each other but only co-existing and got fossilized together. So they are just varietys and not forming a lineage of evolution. So I answer the intermediate point.I say if you found these seals in fossil form evolution would say they are part of a line of evolution. Yet they in fact co-exist. This again because they are just showing the power of diversity.
i would add that the strata of rocks is a wrong idea in these matters.
Different strats can come from the same time.
Anyways the whole idea here of evolution based on biological evidence is in fact based on geologic presumptions.
Thats not biological evidence. Just biological conclusions.

NO. You can't say egg-yolk genes is a vestigial thing. Who says its not important for many reasons. Further its about genetic speculations.
this is about ACTUAL vestigial remnants.
What percentage of living/fossil critters have such vestiges?
I say next to none.
If evolution was true this would be impossible .
A billions pieces , at the least, should be counted in the anatomical etc bodies of biology.
In faxt where it is found are the few special cases where it happened. A great change leaving behind its calling card.
Egg-yolks isn't like leftover knees.There is no evidence for intermediates. Just evidence of creatures in stages interpretated as intermediate. I say they were all living together in different niches. They were all suited. it was quick. Like the Amazon today. Diversity of biology easily accounts for claims of intermediates. So marine mammals are just a part of a living continuim .

All you said here was that everything we are is from former types of bodies. Thats speculation.
Thats not the same thing as leftovers clearly showing previous anatomical realities.
Having hair is evidence only of needing hair. Not evidence of a distant hairy bug connection.

Having a like body plan between creatures is not evidence of heritage. Just evidence of common laws in biology from a common program(er).
Our bodies are all suited to our needs . They are no dragging along leftovers like marine mammals and snakes and a few more.Its a reality that few creatures have anatomical remnants of previous body realities despite the claim of evolution that everything changed a million times until today etc.
Yet not a drop of vestigial bits inside or out relative to such fantastic change claims.
This is impossible. Especially when the few vestigials are used as evidence for evolutions truths.
Saying all our bones are repackaged previous body realities is just speculation. Its not proving anything to someone already denying the presumptions.
Its not reasonable for you to dismiss the billions of changes in creatures since day one as likely leaving no remnant of such great changes in practical leftovers of anatomy.
Creatures that change do leave leftovers. We know the short list.
Yet its short because such change in bodies is rare.
If creatures never evolved there also wouldn't be leftovers on or about the skeleton.I've making two points here.
Where are the vestigial bits from such evolution?
Why are marine mammals being used to demonstrate evolution when they demonstrate the poverty of it regarding remnants.?

Which reasons? And the genes ACTUALLY exist. And you are wrong. Show your working. You are still confusing intermediate forms and transitional species. There are definitely intermediate forms. This is evidence for evolution, since it is what we would predict in the light of evolution.