Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[pocaracas]

hmmm... if a chihuahua and a mastiff belong to the same species, imagine just how different their fossils must look like, in the far future...
How many different species are in the fossil record which may belong to the same species, but of different breeds or races?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

hmmm... if a chihuahua and a mastiff belong to the same species, imagine just how different their fossils must look like, in the far future...
How many different species are in the fossil record which may belong to the same species, but of different breeds or races?

Paleontologists have a specific term for fossils such as you describe:

They call them 'transitionals'.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Rev, are you a primate?

Even I can't say whether he is a primate or not, how can he?

[Cyberman]

This seems to be a common reply to those who reject God and don't have an answer to perplexing questions. "We don't yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "God."

The only question that "God" has ever been the answer to is "What do idiots insist is the answer to every question?"

[Anomalocaris]

hmmm... if a chihuahua and a mastiff belong to the same species, imagine just how different their fossils must look like, in the far future...
How many different species are in the fossil record which may belong to the same species, but of different breeds or races?

Lots. Absent soft tissue and/or DNA, it is often hard to tell whether two somewhat different fossil specimens really represent two species, or different sexes within the same species, or normal range of morphological variation within the same sex of the same species. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if two different specimens really represent two individual of same species, but died at different ages, or even different part of the year, resulting in differences in annual growths such as deer antlers.

Also, many species are recognized based on partial remains. If two sets of non-overlapping partial fossil remains are discovered, it is often impossible to tell whether they represent two different species, or are different parts of animals of the same species.

Sometimes mistakes happen in reverse, such as assigning two non-overlapping sets of partial remains to the same species, when in fact they came from different species, resulting in fanciful fossil reconstructions of a single species that really consist of parts of two different species.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Revelation777 Wrote:
This seems to be a common reply to those who reject God and don't have an answer to perplexing questions. "We don't yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "God."

Fair enough. I've come up with some perplexing questions to which 'God' is a better answer than 'We're working on it':

1. Why, even with the healthiest of parents, are some infants born with birth defects so severe that they die within minutes or hours of birth? Preferred answer: God.

2. Why are old ladies so often robbed and beaten for their pension money? Preferred answer: God.

3. How is it possible, given the vast advances in agricultural and food distribution technologies, that so much of the world's population hovers between malnutrition and starvation? Preferred answer: God.

4. Why does the genital butchery known as female circumcision continue to be practiced? Preferred answer: God.

Any others?

Boru

[MJ the Skeptical]

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, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

The tree of life, so to speak, has many broken branches. There are in fact many transitional forms for just about every animal. Best example I can think of are Neanderthals, they were a different transitional form that came out of Homo-Erectus and we were a different transitional form that came to be Homo-Sapiens. WTF does original diversity mean? is that some biblical nonsense? like "kinds" instead of species...

- wholesale transitions in organisms over time

There is evidence for that, you just can't live long enough to witness it first hand. But you don't need to witness a murder to know there was a murder, there's demonstrable evidence.

Does it move you that the entire scientific community is in consensus over this? that all the evidence points towards a natural progression, little change over a long period of time.

- primitive forms evolving into complex forms

This is also able to be confirmed. Is your contention with this that you basically want a duck to give birth to a swan.. What is the problem with little change over time? Hypothetically, if Micro-evolution is fine with you, then what's the problem.. Fossils are good enough evidence to see changes have occurred and still do, which is why we aren't perfect copies of our parents. We can confirm this on a genetic level down to the DNA, it's not even up for debate anymore.

- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

Clearly this is the case because we are continually transitioning each generation.

And if it weren't the case, you could be famous for being the guy who overturned the highly decorated Theory of Evolution that we need to understand for things like developing Antibiotics.

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.

No, they didn't. Trilobites had to transition from something else as well.

Just because we may not have found their ancestor (which I bet I could contradict) doesn't mean they didn't transition, that's an argument from ignorance.

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.

Do you understand that the fossil record is not perfect and it is incomplete? That doesn't mean we throw away all our knowledge of it. We've made huge strides in the past few decades on the geologic column and the fossil record. Do you also understand how hard it is for fossils to be produced naturally? the dead bodies don't always form fossils, many fossils will erode away, many fossils are very deep in rock where we can't get them, and to be honest fossilization is kind of rare. And what kind of idiot god makes it look like a natural world that evolved? a prankster god unworthy of worship.

[Chas]

Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.

*must not have (you don't learn, do you?)

You do not understand even the first thing about evolution; your statement above demonstrates that. Read a real science book, not "Answers in Genesis".

---

And there it is again: you don't understand the theory. How much plainer can I say it? Take Ken Ham's dick out of your mouth and read a book on the subject. Fucking Christ, is it that hard to dust off a library card?

And . . . "the rabbit must not have got the memo."

You can criticize my poor grammar but go please refrain from the obscenities. Thank you.

You are a fucking moron.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Once again, if the theory of abiogenesis is false, it does not mean anything else in science is. It only means we don't yet understand how life arose.

This seems to be a common reply to those who reject God and don't have an answer to perplexing questions. "We don't yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "God." Because some don't like that answer they keep searching in vain.

Now you're not even confronting the objection. You're off in left field somewhere, with a personal insult twist.

This seems to be a common reply to those who reject Zeus and don't have an answer to the perplexing question of lightning. "We don't about lightning yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "Zeus." Because some don't like that answer they keep searching in vain.

What you don't realize is the you've latched on to a source not only laughed at by atheists, but the entire scientific community at large, secular and religious scientists alike.

If you're fine with throwing away your argument and admitting you've lost, sticking to this source is a clear indicator.

[Coffee Jesus]

I thought the Miller-Urey experiment was evidence for abiogenesis.