Transitional fossils

[FallentoReason]

Charles Darwin was a noble and humble man. He recognized that his greatest contribution to science could still be just a mere fantasy. In his book On the Origin of Species he acknowledged that the lack of evidence for transitional fossils was "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". This is the true sign of a scientist; one that formulates an idea and then seeks to be proven wrong.

Here's just 3 examples of the many species that existed that show a clear trend in the evolution of species. These examples illustrate how species had characteristics 'borrowed' from what we nowadays recognize as two clearly different species.

Attercopus fimbriunguis

Previously interpreted as the world's oldest spider, Attercopus fimbriunguis belongs to an extinct order of arachnids named Uraraneida, thought to be close to the origins of spiders. Attercopus can be envisaged as a spider-like animal able to produce silk, but which lacked true spinnerets and retained a segmented abdomen bearing a flagellum-like tail resembling that of a whip scorpion.[1]

Pederpes

The shape of the skull and the fact that the feet face forward rather than outward indicate that Pederpes was well adapted to land life. It is currently the earliest known fully terrestrial animal, although the structure of the ear shows that its hearing was still much more functional underwater than on land, and may have spent much of its time in the water and could have hunted there.[2]

Gerobatrachus

Gerobatrachus, also referred to as a frogamander, is an extinct genus of amphibamid temnospondyl that lived in the Permian period, approximately 290 million years ago, in the area that is now Baylor County, Texas. The animal has been interpreted as a concrete example for the hypothesis offered by many cladistic analyses that frogs and salamanders had a common ancestor, and that they are only distantly related to the third extant order of amphibians, the caecilians. Gerobatrachus has been considered to be the closest relative of Batrachia, the clade that includes modern amphibians.

Gerobatrachus combines features found later in frogs, such as a large space for a tympanic ear— an "ear drum"— and two ankle bones that are fused together, a typical salamander trait. Its backbone and teeth show features common to both frogs and salamanders, with a wide, lightly built skull similar to that of a frog.[3]

So far, our geological records have provided evidence for the theory of evolution, hence why the theory hasn't altered to provide a better understanding.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attercopus
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederpes
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerobatrachus

[Chuck]

Yeah? I bet you will never find any transition fossil between homo sapiens and Christian fundamentalists.

[padraic]

(5th May 2012 05:14)Chuck Wrote:  Yeah? I bet you will never find any transition fossil between homo sapiens and Christian fundamentalists.

You have that backwards .

[Cthulhu Dreaming]

(5th May 2012 06:56)padraic Wrote:  

(5th May 2012 05:14)Chuck Wrote:  Yeah? I bet you will never find any transition fossil between homo sapiens and Christian fundamentalists.

You have that backwards .

Evolution doesn't imply progress, Pad.

[Forsaken]

The sad thing is that the creationists, despite knowing the obvious, cannot let go of their outdated beliefs. Approving evolution will mean denying creationism - the very foundation on which most religious beliefs are built on. These creationists cannot see their foundation crumbling away.

[FallentoReason]

(5th May 2012 07:57)Forsaken Wrote:  The sad thing is that the creationists, despite knowing the obvious, cannot let go of their outdated beliefs. Approving evolution will mean denying creationism - the very foundation on which most religious beliefs are built on. These creationists cannot see their foundation crumbling away.

I think the fundamental problem with the creationist world view is that they effectively work backwards in order to 'prove' or confirm to themselves that they're right.

1) God exists.
2) anything not in line with the Bible isn't correct.
3) evolution is not correct.
4) TRY and find problems with evolution to be able to discard it.

I've seen this reasoning in many areas, like when they try and defend the lack of credibility of the Gospels by saying 1) God exists therefore 2) the Bible must be infallible because 1) God exists.

I want to understand better where their world view actually makes contact with reality, if ever?

[Christian]

There are no transitional fossils. Fossils do not count toward evolution. If we did have transitional fossils then why haven't we seen an exposition of these so called transitional fossils where the point of transition has been proudly displayed? I want to see rock compared to rock....not the well drawn, false but amusing cartoon looking diagram that you see on wikipedia.

[NoMoreFaith]

(5th May 2012 11:02)Christian Wrote:  There are no transitional fossils.

Other than the ones posted here.. and the vast libraries and museums of them you mean.... but OTHER than those..
Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional fossil just waiting for a peat bog to fall into.

(5th May 2012 11:02)Christian Wrote:  Fossils do not count toward evolution. If we did have transitional fossils then why haven't we seen an exposition of these so called transitional fossils where the point of transition has been proudly displayed?

You mean, other than every major natural history museum in the world? Next time you go on holiday to the US or the UK, or .. well, any country that isn't Fiji I guess... take some time to visit a natural history museum.

If you can't do that. Google.

Quote:I want to see rock compared to rock....not the well drawn, false but amusing cartoon looking diagram that you see on wikipedia.

Google.

Here I'll give you one for free
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/...lution.htm

[frankiej]

(5th May 2012 12:53)NoMoreFaith Wrote:  

(5th May 2012 11:02)Christian Wrote:  There are no transitional fossils.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

They can never seem to understand this.

[Tiberius]

(5th May 2012 11:02)Christian Wrote:  There are no transitional fossils. Fossils do not count toward evolution. If we did have transitional fossils then why haven't we seen an exposition of these so called transitional fossils where the point of transition has been proudly displayed? I want to see rock compared to rock....not the well drawn, false but amusing cartoon looking diagram that you see on wikipedia.

Can I ask you what exactly you think a transitional fossil is? Be as descriptive as you can.