Transitional Fossils - your missing m...

Transitional Fossils - your missing millions

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 19
Next Last

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#1 Jan 7, 2014
Transitional Fossils. There should be some for every species that there is or has been (multi millions) and you have none, nothing. Now do kindly explain why that of the multi millions of species, when is comes to transitional fossils they seem to be as rare as mermaids, peterpan and leprechauns. Could it be like mermaids, peterpan and leprechauns they are just fictional and only exist in your minds?

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#2 Jan 7, 2014
U peeps shld quit ur lying about evo-lution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3 Jan 7, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Transitional Fossils. There should be some for every species that there is or has been (multi millions) and you have none, nothing. Now do kindly explain why that of the multi millions of species, when is comes to transitional fossils they seem to be as rare as mermaids, peterpan and leprechauns. Could it be like mermaids, peterpan and leprechauns they are just fictional and only exist in your minds?
There are 22 intermediates linking Homo Sapiens to the apes alone. Some transitional, others no doubt just dead ends. A continuum of change from bipedal apes all the way to ourselves.

We have intermediates for smaller changes like this across thousands of species, all the way up to the changes at class level such as the archosaurs to dinos, dinos to birds (30+ species of intermediates), reptiles to mammal-like reptiles and mammals, amphibians to reptiles, lobe finned fish to amphibians....

The transitional form is merely one of the species found i,e, B that is measurably intermediate between one species A and another, C. In other words one of the intermediates. Often we cannot say for sure WHICH intermediate WAS THE transitional form when there are more than one possible candidate for the position of "B". For example, H Sapiens may have developed through either of the closely related Ergaster and Erectus lines, as they are similar to each other and each could link from earlier species such as Sedibus or Habilis, through to Heidelbugensis. So the progression could be:

Habilis -> Ergaster -> Archaic Sapiens

or

Habilis -> Erectus -> Archaic Sapiens

or even

Habilis -> Ergaster -> Erectus -> Archaic Sapiens

In other words, our problem is often a surplus of choices all of which fit the continuum, not the lack of any intermediates, when trying to figure out which was THE transitional!

In any case, when you line up the skulls by date and by measurable features such as cranium size, dentition, site of the spinal hole, size of the brow ridges and jaws, etc...you get a smooth continuum.

In other words, intermediates galore, some of which will be transitionals.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#4 Jan 7, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
U peeps shld quit ur lying about evo-lution.
You should try understanding evolution before criticising it. You clearly don't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5 Jan 7, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
U peeps shld quit ur lying about evo-lution.
On the contrary, we leave that to you.

Evolution is the only concept that explains the fossil record. All you need to do to prove it wrong is point to one fossil that violates nested hierarchies. Just one.

Otherwise all those millions of fossils are evidence of evolution.

Unlucky, slaphead.(shrug)

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#6 Jan 7, 2014
knee slapper, walk down the street and say hi to everyone and every living thing you encounter. Everyone of them is a transitional.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#7 Jan 7, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
U peeps shld quit ur lying about evo-lution.
Look in the mirror, TROLL. Your'e the one who is "lying about evolution" here.

I'm guessing you are a bored teenage Jesus Freak being home-schooled in science by Mummy or Daddy using "Christian materials" (sic).
humble brother

Finland

#8 Jan 7, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Evolution is the only concept that explains the fossil record.
Indeed. I have never heard of any other logical explanation that would not depend on some kind of magic that is out of the scope of our observational capabilities.

However, even though Darwin's explanation is logically exceptional, sadly it doesn't fit into the realm of natural science. It is simply because of the fact that natural science requires observation of the explained phenomenon in process. This can not be done for the fossils as they are only traces of dead individuals, while as the phenomenon explained should occur within living populations.

To produce an explanation of the natural phenomenon of evolution you need to be observing living populations, not traces of dead individuals.

So what good are fossils for natural science actually?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#10 Jan 7, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. I have never heard of any other logical explanation that would not depend on some kind of magic that is out of the scope of our observational capabilities.
However, even though Darwin's explanation is logically exceptional, sadly it doesn't fit into the realm of natural science. It is simply because of the fact that natural science requires observation of the explained phenomenon in process. This can not be done for the fossils as they are only traces of dead individuals, while as the phenomenon explained should occur within living populations.
To produce an explanation of the natural phenomenon of evolution you need to be observing living populations, not traces of dead individuals.
So what good are fossils for natural science actually?
This is false. The Scientific Method does NOT require that the ORIGINAL EVENT or phenomena be observed as they happen, and repeatably by other scientists.

It's perfectly fine that the EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND by an event be analyzed by experiment that is repeatable.

Ever heard of forensic science?
humble brother

Finland

#11 Jan 7, 2014
Gillette wrote:
This is false. The Scientific Method does NOT require that the ORIGINAL EVENT or phenomena be observed as they happen, and repeatably by other scientists.
It's perfectly fine that the EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND by an event be analyzed by experiment that is repeatable.
Ever heard of forensic science?
Natural science is the study of natural phenomena. Natural phenomena can only be studied as they occur. If you don't observe something to occur, you have no way of knowing if it truly even occurred.

The falsifiability requirement of natural science requires that the explanation of HOW the occurrence works remains always possibly false.

Are you seriously trying to indicate that science could be done also with the occurrence having possibly not happened at all? That is not science, it is pseudoscience.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#12 Jan 7, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Transitional Fossils. There should be some for every species that there is or has been (multi millions) and you have none, nothing. Now do kindly explain why that of the multi millions of species, when is comes to transitional fossils they seem to be as rare as mermaids, peterpan and leprechauns. Could it be like mermaids, peterpan and leprechauns they are just fictional and only exist in your minds?
Now while I sort of agree, I more disagree. You seem to think that changes happened overnight and should be well seen. For example there was a 1% change in a species every 1000 years the change would be too miniscule to see for it would take 100,000 years for the complete change to happen over time.

On the other hand I would like to see evidence of transitional fossils they say they have. Not just a document but also pictures of said transitional fossils. The same can be said to science if there is only a 1% change per 1000 years the change would be too miniscule to see and detect so transitional fossils should in reality not exist.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#13 Jan 7, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. I have never heard of any other logical explanation that would not depend on some kind of magic that is out of the scope of our observational capabilities.
However, even though Darwin's explanation is logically exceptional, sadly it doesn't fit into the realm of natural science. It is simply because of the fact that natural science requires observation of the explained phenomenon in process. This can not be done for the fossils as they are only traces of dead individuals, while as the phenomenon explained should occur within living populations.
To produce an explanation of the natural phenomenon of evolution you need to be observing living populations, not traces of dead individuals.
So what good are fossils for natural science actually?
Oh! Look what the cat dragged in...
humble brother

Finland

#14 Jan 7, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
Oh! Look what the cat dragged in...
The cat dragged you in by your tail?

I don't think you need to be announcing that :)
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#15 Jan 7, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural science is the study of natural phenomena. Natural phenomena can only be studied as they occur. If you don't observe something to occur, you have no way of knowing if it truly even occurred.
The falsifiability requirement of natural science requires that the explanation of HOW the occurrence works remains always possibly false.
Are you seriously trying to indicate that science could be done also with the occurrence having possibly not happened at all? That is not science, it is pseudoscience.
I well remember what an annoying time-waster you are from past years, so I'll let my first post to you stand without further comment.
humble brother

Finland

#16 Jan 7, 2014
Gillette wrote:
I well remember what an annoying time-waster you are from past years, so I'll let my first post to you stand without further comment.
Well.. I am what you could call an Observer. I can only accept by observation this results in acquisition of verifiable knowledge.

Are you still the same believer that you presented yourself earlier? You accept by belief - which results in a belief system that is unverifiable?

If I am not mistaken, You are a believer, are you not?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#17 Jan 7, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
I well remember what an annoying time-waster you are from past years, so I'll let my first post to you stand without further comment.
You got that right.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#18 Jan 7, 2014
humble brother wrote:
However, even though Darwin's explanation is logically exceptional, sadly it doesn't fit into the realm of natural science. It is simply because of the fact that natural science requires observation of the explained phenomenon in process.
False.

Natural science requires observations of the phenomena predicted by the theory, which is not the same thing.

If the theory predicts divergence from modern forms as we go back through the record, and convergence of currently different forms into more similar forms as we go back through the record, and these things are observed, its validation of the theory.

Not proof, but confirmation.

In any case, we DO have direct observation of the factors of evolution within our own time scales too. So we have direct confirmation of the processes involved and indirect confirmation that the processes produce large scale change over longer timescales, through the fossil record.

That is how science works, like it or not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#19 Jan 7, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now while I sort of agree, I more disagree. You seem to think that changes happened overnight and should be well seen. For example there was a 1% change in a species every 1000 years the change would be too miniscule to see for it would take 100,000 years for the complete change to happen over time.
On the other hand I would like to see evidence of transitional fossils they say they have. Not just a document but also pictures of said transitional fossils. The same can be said to science if there is only a 1% change per 1000 years the change would be too miniscule to see and detect so transitional fossils should in reality not exist.
If you are so keen to see them, I suggest you spend about 5 minutes on google.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#20 Jan 7, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural science is the study of natural phenomena. Natural phenomena can only be studied as they occur. If you don't observe something to occur, you have no way of knowing if it truly even occurred.
And that is why we have theories. We posit a testable explanation of why something occurred, and see if it will explain what we CAN observe and furthermore predict what we should observe if its true (and not observe if its false). Evolution wins on all counts to date.
The falsifiability requirement of natural science requires that the explanation of HOW the occurrence works remains always possibly false.
Thats right. So if a fossil appears of an organism in strata that show it existed before any of its possible evolutionary antecedents, then we would have a falsification of evolution. Not surprisingly, there are millions of fossils found but NONE that violate the nested hierarchy.

More confirmation of the theory.

Is the theory possibly false? Yes, in principle someone might come up with a better explanation that also made predictions - about what should be observed - that can differentiate it from evolution and enable us to test between the two theories.

In 150 years, nobody has. On the other hand, some small modifications to the original theory have been confirmed. Symbiosis of bacteria to form eukaryotes, genetic drift as a factor, the importance of punctuated equilibrium, for example. But as a whole, the ToE in its modern form is the best theory we have, and it works extremely well.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Jan 8, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. I have never heard of any other logical explanation that would not depend on some kind of magic that is out of the scope of our observational capabilities.
However, even though Darwin's explanation is logically exceptional, sadly it doesn't fit into the realm of natural science. It is simply because of the fact that natural science requires observation of the explained phenomenon in process. This can not be done for the fossils as they are only traces of dead individuals, while as the phenomenon explained should occur within living populations.
To produce an explanation of the natural phenomenon of evolution you need to be observing living populations, not traces of dead individuals.
So what good are fossils for natural science actually?
Oh look, bumble bro's back, using the "how do you know where you there" argument again. Since natural selection has been observed in living populations that's not a problem. And also since ALL fossils fall inside with what evolution would predict then there's not a problem there either.

When you finally find yourself a pre-Cambrian rabbit or fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones then your argument will have merit. Until then you're just another fundie apologist pretending not to be a fundie.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 19
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Blitzking 204,932
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min Brian_G 43,200
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr replaytime 18,549
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws 5 hr One way or another 2
Questions about first life 15 hr FallenGeologist 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 16 hr It aint necessari... 914
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 151,481
More from around the web