Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Silver]

If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal

Ummm, no. Just no.

Right from the start you are showing a lack of knowledge in regards to evolution. Evolution is not a process whereby a type of animal changes into another type of animal. Evolution is a process of survival, whereby the animal gradually, over a period of time, adapts to its changing environment. Those that do not evolve typically do not survive.

[Bad Wolf]

Rev, your issues with evolution come from a fundamental misunderstanding of it. Its funny how often people like you don't understand evolution and don't believe it, almost like the two are linked somehow....

[tommynba]

There's plenty of transitional fossils, the problem is that you look up only to creationists sources of information.
Transitional form doesn't mean it's gonna be a totally different "kind of animal" or a cross between two animals. Sometimes changes are very slight and minimal, but then creationists say it's not a transitional form... or they say it's a completely "new form" so they could not acknowledge it's actually transitional fossil.

I suggest you read some good archeology books. Unfortunately i don't know any good titles about the topic :/

[Faith No More]

Revy, every organism is in a transitional form compared to its descendants, so in a sense, every fossil is a transitional fossil.

You should do some research that doesn't come from creationists about evolution before you attempt to refute it.

[max-greece]

This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

However that hypothesis can be eliminated due to the fact that 99.8% of all of the species that have ever lived have now gone extinct.

In other words - the level of intelligence evidenced in the design is too low to be worthy of consideration.

Unless your God is dumber that a bag of dead squirrels, that is.

[LostLocke]

Ah, yes, "kinds" of animals.

That phrase that theists love to throw around without ever committing to a definition of it.

Are lions and tigers the same kind of animal? If no, you're going to have major issues with the Noah story.
If yes, then are "felines" in general one kind of animal? If they are you'd have to include things like meerkats and hyenas. (Yes, hyenas are felines not canines) And if that's not a fairly major change in an animal, then I have no idea what you're looking for.

[Rampant.A.I.]

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Well, that was easy.

Oh look, another result:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...e/lines_03

Why, it's almost as if he didn't even bother looking.

---

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Pick up a piece of rock from the Cambrian period, over 500 million years ago, and most of the fossils you'll see are trilobites. Paleontologists imagine a seafloor literally crawling with these armored arthropods. How did they survive so long and become so diverse? Well, one of the clues seems to lie in their hard shells that fossilize so well — their exoskeletons.

"Appeared suddenly" is a misunderstanding of the process of fossilization.



Also doesn't look like God was fully successful there, gave up on a dozen varieties after a few hundred million, and just went "oh well":



http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...success_03

[Napoléon]

Dear Atheist Friend,
I am planning on presenting on new threads, one at a time, what I will refer to as "The Seven Arguments." If my atheist friends answer each argument convincingly and satisfactory, then I will voluntarily and permanently leave this board...

From this thread, amongst several others.


If this is the first of these 'seven arguments' then I have high hopes for the other 6.


Not.

[downbeatplumb]

I wonder if Rev knows that if he breeds he will be part of evolution as he transfers his DNA to the next generation(sorry for putting that thought in your head folks).
We are all transitional forms, each of us carries genetic differences.

[SteelCurtain]

Oh, boy. I am not surprised that this is your first in a series of devastating posts, Rev.

Here's the problem with posts like that. I'll admit that I'm making an assumption here, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you really open to any evidence? Are you really open to seeing how flawed that view is? I don't think you are. I think your confirmation bias is so strong that you will eat up anything anyone tells you that agrees with your view, while not stopping to do any research to see if that 'evidence' jibes with reality.

So here's my attempt to raise your consciousness.

There are many, many, many transitional fossils. You can see them in museums, you can see them in books, you can see them in peer reviewed, scholarly articles by evolutionary biologists. It is undeniable that transitional forms do exist.

It seems that your biggest issue is a false expectation of what should be there. This is a common tactic by creationists to confuse people who wouldn't know any better. They say things like "if evolution were true we should see hairy eskimos" and people think, "well, yeah!" and don't stop to critically think about that statement. So why wouldn't we expect to see unbidden volumes of fossils in the strata? Well, for one, fossilization is an extremely rare event. Why would you expect anything different? Here is an explanation of how fossils are formed. See the bibliography for sources. Second, the type of animal being fossilized makes a huge difference in fossilization; animals with minerally exoskeletons will more easily fossilize than those with soft ones. Lastly, sometimes events need to occur, and animals have to be present for those fossilization events. Mudslides, floods (resist the temptation, please), ice falls/freezes, even transportation to a sedimentary area (falling in a river or swamp).

Essentially, you and other creationists are deliberately creating your own false expectations and pointing to the fact that reality doesn't meet them. It is the equivalent of me saying that since Jesus doesn't wake me up softly each morning by appearing in the flesh in my bedroom, and singing to me and telling me he loves me, that Jesus doesn't exist. You wouldn't even expect that as a Christian, would you? So how much bearing does that expectation have on the existence/nonexistence of Jesus?