What would a transitional fossil look like?

Scientists have unearthed fossils in a coastal desert of southern Peru of a four-legged whale that thrived both in the sea and on land about 43 million years ago in a discovery that illuminates a pivotal stage in early cetacean evolution.Personally, I understand that they are all transitional but surely this one is undeniable.Links and info I guess.Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the What would a transitional fossle look like? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Not to a creationist. We can expect this one to be the focus of extra special double denial. And don't call me Shirley.

I suppose that it did appear suspiciously all of a sudden out of the rocks there when they uncovered it. Here is a more thorough description

Interestingly, the fossil record for whales is actually one of the better ones when it comes to transitional fossils. I remember watching an episode of the show 'Paleoworld' back in the 90s and they showcased many of the specimens they had regarding how whales evolved from terrestrial animals known as Mesonychids. Was very fascinating.Still, when it comes to proof for evolution versus intelligent design aka creationism, this evidence won't matter. They will just move the goal posts again.

I think that's a bit out of date though. Now that many more early whale fossils have been discovered, and now we have a better understanding of mammal interrelationships in general, it's no longer clear that mesonychids are closely related to whales. They might be, but it's a matter of some dispute.

It was evolving by micro-evolution from the cow- to the fish-kind.

quote:

---

vertebral and limb bone epiphyses are firmly attached to centra and diaphyses

​

The anterior margin of the large mandibular foramen is sub-rectilinear, directed anteroventrally, and reaching a level intermediate between the top of the coronoid process and m3. The outline of the anterior part of the mandible in lateral view indicates the absence of clinorhinchy (sensu [15]).

​

Distal to the trochlear notch, a rough surface on the medial surface of each ulna corresponds to an attachment area for biceps brachii and/or brachialis. The distal epiphysis of the ulna is truncated and bears a flat articulation with the cuneiform.

---

These are devil words.

Obviously you understand nothing. You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh. Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations. The cow genome does not have any genetic stuff for making fish, it is all variation on the cow kind and nothing else. The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color. You guys really understand absolutely nothing about the processes required. You cannot get variation beyond the genome. Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation. I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jeeez! You literalists are no fun at all! AZPaul3 was being sarcastic in an obvious parody of you stupid literalists! Jeeeez!BTW, cetaceans are not fish nor fishy. Besides many other obvious problems, cetacean flukes are very different from fishy fins. Fish swim side to side, whereas cetaceans swim up and down -- we even learned that up-down stroke in skin diving and SCUBA class.Of course, on this very forum right here we still have you yourself personally demonstrating via the felid "basic created kind" that microevolution leads directly to macroevolution. Of course in typical creationist fashion, you immediately started back-pedaling and denying everything you had just revealed, but that does not change the facts.Just for review, the "felid basic created kind" includes both genera of Felidae which are Panthera (lions, tigers, and leopards, oh my!) and Felinae (all kinds of kitties and more). All kinds of hybrids are possible within Felinae and all kinds of hybrids are possible are possible within Panthera, but not hybrids between the two genara Felinae and Panthera (well, that is one that happened, which was very unexpected, but that does not negate the fundamental reproductive barrier between felid genera).According to Faith and standard creationism, both genera Felinae and Panthera are of the same basic created kind. And yet they have essentially become reproductively isolated, the very definition of macroevolution. And they do not even begin to approach the same problems presented by YEC's "basic worm kinds" and "basic moth kinds", etc.So then, yes, Faith herself did indeed prove on this very forum that microevolution does indeed lead directly to macroevolution.

Your post makes me wish that I could give AZPaul another cheer. He has accurately caricaturized the YEC position on this subject and you have completely fallen for it.

Many "macro-evolutionary" events are difficult to grasp.These things can only happen over a span of multiple-horizons.Creationists have their views because these things are not so simple as their critics like to present them.I ask that there be less sarcastic commentary.

I could grant you the first two points, though with reservations since that second one had weird terminology attached.But the actual problem with creationists is that they require things that are plainly and simply not true and so should not be considered.If somebody wants to present pure and utter BS, then you should point that out. And your point is???

Of course he was being sarcastic, but to be sarcastic about microevolution in the way he was shows he doesn't have a clue. And neither do you. None of you will ever see what is really going on because you are glued into your ToE expectations. They are impossible because you have no grasp of the processes involved to bring it about, none. You cannot get from the built in variation of the genome of any given species or kind to any other species or kind. Within the genome all the genetic stuff of the species or kind is present. To get something entirely different, that is a characteristic of a wholly different species, requires changes to the genome that would take so many trials and errors it is as good as impossible. It's like the route I imagined some time back from the fossil reptile ear to the fossil mammal ear. The genetic stuff is not present for the mammal ear, the layout is entirely different. To get to the mammal ear requires mutations of such a complex sort it can't happen. Millions of mutations that produce useless deformities would have to happen before you got anything like one part of the mammal ear. Same with any of your putative changes from one species to another. The genome already has all the stuff of one species, you don't get the stuff for a new species out of that.Consider the species or kind called dog. ALL dogs have the same basic physical structure or skeletal form or shape. All of them, even where there are some distortions to it due to insane breeding practices. You will never get a structural change that makes that basic skeletal form into anything else. It's there in the dog genome.Of course you will go on with the verbal abuse and the certainty that you are right nevertheless. No I never demonstrated macroevolution. What you are talking about is my description of how you get to "speciation" and YOU call that macroevolution. That's a ridiculous claim since the genetic condition of the "new species" is depleted to the point that further evolution is impossible, and that depleted condition is in most cases most likely the reason why breeding with the parent population is no longer possible. To call it macroevolution is simply to indulge in the usual self deception of evos. It's all a definitional game.ABE: I don't remember the cat examples, but there is no doubt in my mind that Panthera and Felidae are the same kind since they have the same body structure. Loss of ability to breed with each other, as a I say above, most likely has to do with varying in different directions until there are too many differences between their respective genomes for fertility. /ABEThe whole idea of transitional fossils is another self deception.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh

---

In reality that is an open question. Whether macroevolution involves anything more than iterated microevolution is not decided.

quote:

---

Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations.

---

By the usual definitions it also includes mutations - and in fact you yourself have explicitly done so by claiming that antibiotic resistance is an example of microevolution. Since antibiotic resistance can appear in a clonal population - without any genetic variation - it must arrive by mutation in those instances. (It is, of course rather easy to get a clonal population of organisms that rapidly reproduce by binary fission)

quote:

---

The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color.

---

Given the timescales involved it seems quite plausible that large numbers of smaller changes could do the same thing.

quote:

---

You cannot get variation beyond the genome.

---

Then how do we get antibiotic resistance appearing in a clonal population ?

quote:

---

Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation.

---

No, we don’t because of mutation. And that is why it hasn’t happened.

quote:

---

I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.

---

If producing antibiotic resistance in a clonal population is macroevolution - and you are saying that it is (even if everyone else disagrees) - you have been proven wrong by a simple experiment that has been tried many times over.

quote:

---

Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.

---

When you can come up with a genuinely better explanation - one that fits the evidence better, not one you happen to like - then you can say that honestly.

Double down?Even sarcasm means nothing to these people.But it was funny. Hilariously funny, so there is at least that.M'Lady, I hope this will not overstep my bounds again, but you are the most delightful ignoramus on the forum.