Evolution=Bad Science Fiction (lack of transitionals)

Evolutionists are desperate in their search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory of evolution. If, as they believe, millions of species of plants and animals have evolved during hundreds of millions of years, many billions times billions of transitional forms would have lived and died during those hundreds of millions of years, and thus there should be no difficulty in finding fossils of a very large number of these transitional forms. In fact, our museums, among the 250,000 different fossil species in their collections, should have tens of thousands of transitional forms. One would not have to be an expert paleontologist and anatomist to recognize, for example, a structure halfway between a forelimb and a wing, or something halfway between an ordinary jaw of a reptile and the bill of a duck-billed dinosaur. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, however, when it comes to these coveted transitional forms, they must do much with little or nothing. added "Lack of Transitionals" to title - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-28-2004]

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Every fossil is a transitional, because every organism is the transition between its ancestors and its decendants.The reason, I suppose, that you don't see any transitionals when you look at the fossil record is because you don't know what a transitional fossil is supposed to look like.Let me hit you with an analogy. Pretend that you're on a trip across the country, hitting national monuments along the way. You start at the Statue of Liberty and go all the way to the Golden Gate bridge. You get out of the car and take pictures of yourself along the way.The fact that you have a picture of yourself standing in front of the St. Louis Gateway arch, and the fact that the Gateway arch is a fully-formed monument in it's own right, doesn't change the fact that it represents the "transition" from the east to the west.Here's a list of discovered transitional forms in the vertebrate kingdom: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQYes, there are some gaps. But the fact that you don't have all the jigsaw pieces doesn't mean you can't see what the picture is.Oh, and one more thing. Copy and paste without proper attibution (in this case, the ICR) is not only against the forum guidelines, it's plagerism. Cite your source, or better yet, make your own argument.

Thanks to Crash for pointing this out to me. My bad..I missed it.Laser, it is against Forum Guidelines to copy material not your own and pass it as such. Plagarizing can lead to suspension.Your post is from Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchIn the future, please site any source you use or better yet, put it in your own words and post a link to the info. Please read the Forum Guidelines and familiarize yourself with forum rules.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

also check outAnswersInGenesis.com and their list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use ... Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Crashfrog:
"Every fossil is a transitional, because every organism is the transition between its ancestors and its decendants."You are using a common, but very lose notion of ancestor. About zero percent of fossils are ancestors as in parents-offspring descendancy to anything that lives now, or any new specie whatsoever, they just die. When you add in mendellian genetics for sexually reproducing species, this rounded of zero becomes a little more solid, because even when it is an ancestor in the sense of being a parent down the line, it's still possible that zero part of it's DNA is a copy from it's grandparent.I think it's pretty important to remember that in studying the origin of species in evolutionary theory, you are limiting yourself to a tiny proportion of organisms that ever lived. It is marginal.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No offense, but people can think without listening to AIG. Even if they do suggest not arguing a certain point - they themselves don't own creationism. I have heard many creationists say that the fossil record doesn't say evolution happened because of the lack of transitionals, that's a valid point - Ken Ham or no Ken Ham.Surely you aren't tricking the uninformed into agreeing with evo's because AIG says so are you? Don't get me wrong - there are some arguments which are probably silly, but I have noticed that some evo's direct creationists to AIG a lot.Also - AIG are for a 6 thousand year old universe, Hugh Ross and other old earthers are for a 14 billion year old universe. - So Ken Ham should not be complaining - he's arguing the silliest of arguments according to evo's --> a young earth. Maybe you should tell him to add that one to his list of "don'ts".

But it's not a valid point. The fossil record contains more than enough transitionals to support evolutionary theory.

If the author of the post could "think for himself" then cutting-and-pasting material from the ICR is not a good way of demonstrating it.And if he won't even consider the views put forward by AiG how is he in any position to know if the point is valid or not ? If he won't listen to AiG - a group biased AGAINST recognising the existence of transitional fossils - he certainly isn't going to investigate the real evidence with an open mind.And it isn't a valid point because it isn't true.

quote:

---

No offense, but people can think without listening to AIG.

---

No offense, but in my experience, the majority of science-deniers who post here tend to not actually do a lot of thinking for themselves.The OP of this very thread, in fact, is lifted directly from the ICR website.

quote:

---

Even if they do suggest not arguing a certain point - they themselves don't own creationism. I have heard many creationists say that the fossil record doesn't say evolution happened because of the lack of transitionals, that's a valid point - Ken Ham or no Ken Ham.

---

Well, no, it really isn't a valid point for several reasons.1) There are actually thousands of identified transitional fossils. In fact, every organism, unless it is a clone, is a transitional organism.2) Fossils form under very rare, specific conditions. Why would we expect to see billions of transitional forms when fossilization is such a rare event?3) Just because we don't have a fossil of every single organism in an unbroken lineage doesn't mean we cannot draw some conclusions from the fossils we do have in that lineage.

quote:

---

Surely you aren't tricking the uninformed into agreeing with evo's because AIG says so are you? Don't get me wrong - there are some arguments which are probably silly, but I have noticed that some evo's direct creationists to AIG a lot.

---

Since the OP was lifted directly from a Creationist site, it seems appropriate to direct the poster to a Creationist site, since we already know that the poster is likely to trust it as a source.While I don't trust those sites as sources of scientific information in the least, a given Creationist is much more likely to be open to AiG or ICR than a scientific site.

Mike, It's just that the claim is so embarrassingly wrong. Ken Ham or no Ken Ham, there ARE transitional fossils. Pick up any advanced/specific palaontology text.Mark

Maybe it would be more accurate, then, to say that every fossil could be a transitional.You're right that the fossil record is largely a record of extinction.

Hey guys,
I think we need to narrow the topic to a single type of transitionals if we want to have some meaningful debate. When the subject is as broad as every single potential transitional form, it's nearly impossible to go farther than generalizations like
There are not any!
There are too!!
ARE NOT!!!
ARE TOO!!!

Laserlover, you started the thread, it's your call. Are there any specific missing transitional forms you want to talk about?

Every fossil is a transitional, because every organism is the transition between its ancestors and its decendants.(The topic is macro evolution and the mutation of species and not the
natural progession of human procreation)The reason, I suppose, that you don't see any transitionals when you look at the fossil record is because you don't know what a transitional fossil is supposed to look like.(A transitional would show both charactaristics of mutation)Let me hit you with an analogy. Pretend that you're on a trip across the country, hitting national monuments along the way. You start at the Statue of Liberty and go all the way to the Golden Gate bridge. You get out of the car and take pictures of yourself along the way.The fact that you have a picture of yourself standing in front of the St. Louis Gateway arch, and the fact that the Gateway arch is a fully-formed monument in it's own right, doesn't change the fact that it represents the "transition" from the east to the west.(Heres an analogy,if I mutated from a fish to a human I would have a transitional relative along the way that looked like the creature from the black lagoon.)Here's a list of discovered transitional forms in the vertebrate kingdom:Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQHere is a list of why one should disregard the posted link:http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.aspYes, there are some gaps. But the fact that you don't have all the jigsaw pieces doesn't mean you can't see what the picture is.(A puzzle is only as good as it's pieces)Oh, and one more thing. Copy and paste without proper attibution (in this case, the ICR) is not only against the forum guidelines, it's plagerism. Cite your source, or better yet, make your own argument.(I just did)

The article you cite form the so-called "trueorigsn" site is not a good reason to ignor:e the talkorigins.org FAQs. It is arguably a good reason to ignore the trueorigins site.I suppose you want specifics. Well on the fron page talkorigins.org states:
"The primary reason forthis archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."Makes it pretty clear what they are about, doesn't it. Maybe Jorge didn't bother to read the front page in full - but if he didn't then he is in NO position to know what it omits! We know that he has at least LOOKED at the front page because he quotes part of it. He manages to misinterpret a clear reference to the USENET newsgroup talk.origins as referring to the web site (and I happen to know he couldn't be bothered to correct it even when he updated the essay). So talkorigins.org ALREADY had the very statement he demanded from them - and if he didn;t see it it is because he couldn't be bothered to read the few sentences on the front page.I think that says quite enough about Jorge Fernandez' commitment to integrity and to presenting the full facts.Let us also note that while talkorigins.org frequently posts links to rebuttals to any arguments they present - as well as providing a very estensive set of links to creationist sited - Jorge Fernandez chose NOT to link to the respons published on talkorigins.org
Reply to Fernandez