Lack of transitional fossils: another evolutionary dilemma?
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
pleasedtomeetme
New member
How many examples do you need?
JustinFoldsFive
New member
It is most often a waste of time to present a creationist with a transitional fossil, as it will most likely be written off as a completely seperate species poofed into existence by God approximately 4,000-6,000 years ago. You see, no matter how similar the species, or how logically it appears to fit between two other species...it simply cannot be a transition between the two. That would lend some credence to TOE. [GASP]
Besides, this is Bob B. Discussing TOE with him never fails to be an exercise in futility. It's like discussing affirmative action with a KKK member. Like discussing a free market economy with a communist. Like discussing color with a blind man.
Good luck.
Besides, this is Bob B. Discussing TOE with him never fails to be an exercise in futility. It's like discussing affirmative action with a KKK member. Like discussing a free market economy with a communist. Like discussing color with a blind man.
Good luck.
Of course, if you produce a fish with legs (Darwin predicted them, and now we have examples) they will simply claim that the new fossil now produces two new gaps on each side of it, so it can't be a transitional after all.
If we find a whale with legs (Darwin predicted it, and now we have examples) they do the same thing.
If we find a dinosaur with feathers (Huxley predicted it, and now we have examples) they do the same thing.
This is the infamous "Gish Gallop", one of the oldest and silliest of creationist excuses.
If we find a whale with legs (Darwin predicted it, and now we have examples) they do the same thing.
If we find a dinosaur with feathers (Huxley predicted it, and now we have examples) they do the same thing.
This is the infamous "Gish Gallop", one of the oldest and silliest of creationist excuses.
There is another explanation for the lack of transitional fossils between major groups: multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the very beginning.
Most serious "trees" that appear in textbooks should use dotted lines to connect the major groups. I wonder why.
Most serious "trees" that appear in textbooks should use dotted lines to connect the major groups. I wonder why.
Last edited:
If I understand the evolution correctly, it is stated that a land mammal returned to the ocean to become a whale. How did it survive the evolutionary process? Just because a fossil of a whale with legs has been found (though that's the first I've heard of it - could you provide a link for verification) doesn't mean that it came from a land dwelling ancestor. It could have been a genetic defect. There is no way for science to prove that it is a step in an evolutionary process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a young earth creationist. I believe the earth is millions of years old. I just don't think the science of evolution is as sound as evolutionists (a religion of its own) make it out to be. What did God create when He first created the earth? I don't know. What evolved and what didn't? I don't know.
Just so I don't bring down the wrath of the creationist. I believe in the gap theory and have multitudes of reasons for it. However, that is not the purpose of this thread or this post.
Agape,
CiY
Some populations of ungulates did that, a little at a time, starting with animals that could run on earth, but were able to wade around in shallow water. (Pakicetus)
Gradual change, filling different niches on the way. The usual.
Quite a number of different species now. And every now and then, a modern whale is born with vestigial hind legs. The genes for legs are still there, but they normally aren't expressed.
Thewissen JG, Williams EM, Roe LJ, Hussain ST.
Department of Anatomy, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio 44272, USA. thewisse@neoucom.edu
Modern members of the mammalian order Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are obligate aquatic swimmers that are highly distinctive in morphology, lacking hair and hind limbs, and having flippers, flukes, and a streamlined body. Eocene fossils document much of cetaceans' land-to-water transition, but, until now, the most primitive representative for which a skeleton was known was clearly amphibious and lived in coastal environments. Here we report on the skeletons of two early Eocene pakicetid cetaceans, the fox-sized Ichthyolestes pinfoldi, and the wolf-sized Pakicetus attocki. Their skeletons also elucidate the relationships of cetaceans to other mammals. Morphological cladistic analyses have shown cetaceans to be most closely related to one or more mesonychians, a group of extinct, archaic ungulates, but molecular analyses have indicated that they are the sister group to hippopotamids. Our cladistic analysis indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to artiodactyls than to any mesonychian. Cetaceans are not the sister group to (any) mesonychians, nor to hippopotamids. Our analysis stops short of identifying any particular artiodactyl family as the cetacean sister group and supports monophyly of artiodactyls.
Nature. 2001 Sep 20;413(6853):259-60.
Oelschläger HA.
Zentrum der Morphologie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, BRD.
The present paper is concerned with the comparative morphology of the archeocete and odontocete skull. Among the archeocetes, the recently described lower Eocene Pakicetus inachus obviously represents an early stage of adaptation to aquatic life. The morphology of the incomplete cranial remains, however, gives no evidence that Pakicetus was an amphibious intermediate stage. The evolution of advanced archeocetes and odontocetes is characterized by the successive acquirement of new morphological devices related to the emission and perception of ultrasound under water. The formation of a sonar system in odontocetes obviously not only helped to compensate for the loss of the peripheral olfactory system but moreover was a substantial factor in the evolution of the exceptional dolphin brain.
Gegenbaurs Morphol Jahrb. 1987;133(5):673-85
Yes, it does. The first known one had the skull of a very primitive whale, but the body of a running animal, complete with hooves.
It would have been, if the niche for an amphibious coastal carnivore/scavenger wasn't available.
It's not just that we have a series of gradually-modified land animals. We also have genetic information, of the same sort they use to determine paternity, so we know it works. We also have all these obvious whales with legs, and then even some modern whales born with vestigial legs.
Oh, and they still have an ungulate digestive tract. Never needed to change it, I guess.
I'm always surprised that those who think they hate science, call it a religion. Because evolutionary theory depends on evidence, it is a science. Creationism, being based on faith, is a religion.
Fortunately, there are ways to investigate such questions. God is not deceptive, and did not plant this evidence to fool us.
Hmmm... sounds like the argument from ignornance, Bob. Tell you what, name two major groups that evolutionary theory says are related, and I'll see if I can find an organism intermediate between them.
Here's your chance for credibility. Show us.
I was so enjoying your post until this point. Evolution is a science that is ever evolving (pardon the pun) and I find it facinating (as I do in discovering all of God's creation). But an evolutionist is a religious fanatic that goes beyond the science of provable fact. Many theories are based on guesses. They may be sound, they are most often educated, but guesses none the less. Just because one guess has been proven, does not automatically prove all guesses right. And just because today the observable facts seem to prove a guess, doesn't mean that tomorrow an new fact will come to light that disproves the guess in favor of another guess.
Every day there are new discoveries that disprove old "sacred cows." Every day one scientist disproves another. I'm not saying that all scientific research is "guesses." The earth is round. There was a time when humans thought the earth was flat. Then a scientist made an educated guess that it was round. He had observable facts that supported his guess. But until it was proved, it was just a theory. There are some theories that are provable, like being in the space-shuttle and seeing a round earth. We cannot, by the very nature of the process, see the millions of years of evolution. All we can do is short-term observation and postulate the outcome of millions of years of evolution. Evolution has many supporting observations, but it is (at this point in time) an unprovable theory. We can watch a species evolve (i.e. dogs - wolves evolving into everything from toy chihuahuahs to mastiffs and great danes), but we cannot prove that a fish can change into dog (or vice versa). We can only observe the tests we can do and surmise the cause of the results. It may be that gentic similarities are indeed caused by evolution; but it also remains possible that all of creation (past and present) has gentic similarities because God created it that way. I am not opposed to either possibility. I enjoy the discovery.
The final sentence of your post is (in and of itself) true. But that doesn't negate the possiblity of other possible explanations, sinister or otherwise.
Agape,
CiY
"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156)
JustinFoldsFive
New member
CiY127, not only do you fail to respond to The Barbarian's extensive discussion of whale evolution (which you were intent on discussing/discrediting earlier), but you begin with this absolute gem;
Instead of falling back on the typical creationist mumbo jumbo [evolution is unprovable, micro = good/macro = bad, God could have did it!], why don't you (for once) just stick to the evidence? To be honest, it seems that you will never give TOE the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how much evidence you are presented with. No scientific theory is provable, yet you seem to demand nothing short of an irrefutable proof from evolutionists. You will never get it. Just take a look a gravity. For all we know, there are mysteriously invisible leprechauns who surround us at all times and pull objects to the ground with their invisible magnets. There is no way to prove that the current theory of gravitation is correct, but an abundance of evidence seems to suggest that we are on the right track. The same goes for evolution.
Will you at least be honest and admit that your primary objection to TOE is theologically based...not scientifically?
CiY127 said:
Instead of falling back on the typical creationist mumbo jumbo [evolution is unprovable, micro = good/macro = bad, God could have did it!], why don't you (for once) just stick to the evidence? To be honest, it seems that you will never give TOE the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how much evidence you are presented with. No scientific theory is provable, yet you seem to demand nothing short of an irrefutable proof from evolutionists. You will never get it. Just take a look a gravity. For all we know, there are mysteriously invisible leprechauns who surround us at all times and pull objects to the ground with their invisible magnets. There is no way to prove that the current theory of gravitation is correct, but an abundance of evidence seems to suggest that we are on the right track. The same goes for evolution.
Will you at least be honest and admit that your primary objection to TOE is theologically based...not scientifically?
But there are huge holes:
1) the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system,
2) the origin of sexual reproduction,
3) the lack of transitional forms between the major groups.
Such huge holes in the theory should logically downgrade the status of the theory to a mere imperfect hypothesis.
On the other hand the simple story in Genesis is the key to these mysteries: multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the very beginning.
Do you agree?
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Bob, the Biblical account of creation holds no more scientific weight than any of the thousands of creation accounts proposed by various religions and cultures. I'll stick with science.
There are no other creation stories that can hold a candle to the brilliant "hint" God gave to us in the Genesis creation story: multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the very beginning of life.
Sean Carroll waxes elegant over his discovery that Hox genes are so similar among various major groups of creatures that they must have arisen prior to the Cambrian explosion.
A better hypothesis would be that the phenomenon occurs because of "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the very beginning of life"
, the same hypothesis which accounts for the origin of the replication transcription system, the origin of sexual reproduction as well as the lack of transitional forms between the major groups of creatures.
PlastikBuddha
New member
No. You're hawking your pet theory like a used car salesman but no one is buying. We're more interested in evidence than in your pipe dreams. You say the ToE has holes in it. :duh: Have you noticed how much fewer these holes have become? Against all of the evidence you point out a few areas that certainly don't make or break the theory and demand we overlook everything else. You have yet to do anything but offer up the God of the gaps, trying to sell us on the power windows and the extra cup-holders while trying to gloss over the fact that it HAS NO ENGINE! DNA/RNA is being explored as we speak. Sexual reproduction is reasonably well documented through examination of the protist/plant and protist/animal transitions and there an abundance of transitional fossils which your prejudice prevents you from acknowledging. Your protests are growing more pathetic even as your tone becomes more authoratative and condescending.
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Bob, the Biblical creation story can "hint" at any number of things, so long as you are liberal with your interpretation. It's kind of like one of those "hindsight is 20/20" scenarios. Pick a scientific phenomenon, and it's quite likely that you can find at least one Biblical passages that "predicts" that very phenomenon. Heck, and since the Bible predicts it; that lends even more credence to the Bible!
:doh:
:doh:
Sounds like you've been led down the garden path on that one. Evolutionary theory is based on evidence, which is why is is a science.
No. Hypotheses are based on guesses. They become theories only after they are verified by evidence.
Yep. You've confused "hypothesis" and "theory."
And (of course) a single verified prediction of an hypothesis isn't sufficient to make it a theory (theories are the strongest things in science, even more useful than laws). Only after numerous verified predictions will an hypothesis be regarded as a theory. Would you like to learn about some of them?
All scientific theories are unprovable, since they rely on inductive reasoning. We only gain greater and greater confidence in them, as we get more and more evidence.
That's good. If that happened, evolutionary theory would be refuted.
The process involves making inferences from evidence. This might seem unreliable to you, but it works very well. What has been more successful than science?
Turns out they are. We can check that by seeing if organisms of known descent show the same kinds of similarities. They do.
Of course, God could do anything, but I doubt very much if He fakes evidence.
Bob, I noticed that, when I suggested we test your claim that there are no transitions between major groups of living things, you cut and ran.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why you've declined to defend your assertion. What's holding you up?
I'm a bit puzzled as to why you've declined to defend your assertion. What's holding you up?
Not necessary. The experts agree on the lack of transitional forms between the major groups. Want more quotations?