Transitional fossils

[Anomalocaris]

Transitional fossil is the fossil of a creature caught in the process of morphing into a fundamentalist but have not yet become completely stupid.

Appearently there are none to be found. Fundamentalists are created fully stupid.

[Napoléon]

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.

HALF DUCK HALF CROC.

CROCODUCK.

Fucking imbeciles, the only people who say we haven't found a transitional fossil are morons who have no fucking comprehension of what one is.

Moreover they have no comprehension of evolution to even a primary school level of understanding.

[Thor]

There are no transitional fossils.

Let me introduce you Tiktaalik:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Here we have a creature that has a mix of fish and amphibian traits. It is a clear transition from fish to tetrapods. And get this... scientists actually predicted its existence! They surmised (using evolutionary theory) that such a creature must have existed. They were even able to calculate when it must have lived. This allowed them to figure out which rock layers were likely to hold fossils of this thing. And they were right! You see, this is how a scientific theory works!

Now please educate yourself so you don't look like an ignorant fool.

Fossils do not count toward evolution.

Then angles do not count toward geometry. Cave paintings do not count toward archaeology. The speed of light does not count toward relativity. Do you now see how stupid your statement is?

And you know what? We don't need fossils to know that Evolutionary Theory is true! Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" and you'll learn why!

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?

There is no "point of transition". All we can do is find examples of fossils that demonstrate how creatures have changed over time.

I want to see rock compared to rock

How about your head compared to rock?

....not the well drawn, false but amusing cartoon looking diagram that you see on wikipedia.

And you know these diagrams are false..... how?

[DeeTee]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Just got to love it. Whenever evolutionists cannot come up with the evidence they need, they resort to idiotic unproveable , unverifiable comments like the one quoted above.

When they couldn't prove their theory as claimed they went with another unverifiable generality--evolution is change.

neither are true and just shows the desperation of the evolutionist who lacks the evidence to support their fale theory.

[Thor]

neither are true and just shows the desperation of the evolutionist who lacks the evidence to support their fale theory.

I can see the intelligence level we're dealing with here. You want to speak as an authority on matters of science and you can't even spell "fail".

EPIC FAIL!

[Paul the Human]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Just got to love it. Whenever evolutionists cannot come up with the evidence they need, they resort to idiotic unproveable , unverifiable comments like the one quoted above.

When they couldn't prove their theory as claimed they went with another unverifiable generality--evolution is change.

neither are true and just shows the desperation of the evolutionist who lacks the evidence to support their fale theory.

You shouldn't talk about evolution. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and are only making yourself look like a child. A really stoopid child. It's amusing, sure... But it it makes me feel bad for you. I mean... How embarrassing.

[orogenicman]

The issue of transitional fossils is a red herring. ALL species are transitional, because no species anywhere on the planet has static DNA, which is what would be required of species that aren't transitional. DNA not only get modified as species evolve, DNA changes throughout the lifetime of individuals within a species. It is a highly dynamic molecule despite the fact the much of it is conserved.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You have that backwards .

Evolution doesn't imply progress, Pad.

Oh,of course.

Saw this on Babylon 5 last night, I'm watching series 2.


Ambassador Londo Mollari to wife number 1 (he has 3) :

"You haven't changed"

Wife number 1:" You have;you've devolved"

Is that what has happened to young earth creationists?

PS How may does this last one make here? Seems like a lot,but then I think one is one too many.-------and THAT is why I will never be asked to be a moderator.

[Napoléon]

Just got to love it. Whenever evolutionists cannot come up with the evidence they need, they resort to idiotic unproveable , unverifiable comments like the one quoted above.

When they couldn't prove their theory as claimed they went with another unverifiable generality--evolution is change.

neither are true and just shows the desperation of the evolutionist who lacks the evidence to support their fale theory.

Ta mere suce des ours dans la foret!

[Godscreated]

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]

Tell me something, how do you know this creature could produce silk, how do you know it's not a scorpion. How do you know it had a segmented body, the creature was smashed under sediment, rotted away, then the space left by the absent body was filled with minerals to form this fossil. You do not know what shape the sediments weight made of it's body.

---

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]

Sounds like a salamander to me, actually that's a good definition of a salamander.

---

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]

Looks like a frog about to finish it's development to me. Do you know if this isn't true and if so how. Again fossils which can leave details out or cause what seems to be details that are in fact incomplete filling of the specimen that was in the sediment.

So far the fossils have shown nothing of the sort, let lone proved in any way that evolution is viable.