Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Mister Agenda]

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.

How did you become an expert on this subject? If you're not an expert, why do you think you know more than the people who have devoted their lives to the study of fossils do?

Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Oh, really?

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.

Do you think it follows that 'appear suddenly in the fossil record' equates to 'appears suddenly'. How do you measure complexity in fossils? Does evolution really predict that simple forms will evolve into more complex forms, or does it actually predict that life forms will either evolve to be better fitted to their reproductive environment--even if that involves 'growing more simple', stay roughly the same, or go extinct?

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.

Some fossils do. Some lineages have an exquisitely detailed fossil record showing all significant transitions for long periods of time.

---

Wow! This Rev guy is even dumber than I originally thought.

Nah...I knew from the start.

It's less idiocy, I think, than having been brainwashed very effectively. Maybe I'm more sympathetic because getting out of it was a slow process with me rather than precocious skepticism as it was for many posters, or those who were never indoctrinated in the first place.

[Coffee Jesus]

Natural hybrid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyX7HH0omIU

[Revelation777]

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Well, that was easy.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-creatures

This clearly answers if apes evolved into humans

---

If you want to play at science then I would expect you to answer this:

What would you expect to see in the fossil record that would support a Creationist hypothesis?

http://www.creationproof.com/id24.html

probably some of this

[Heywood]

Not likely, he's too afraid of falling off.

Come on, all bible believing Christians known the earth is at the center of the universe, where can you fall off to from there?

Sorry to bust your bubble but the earth is at the center of the observable universe.

[Rampant.A.I.]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-creatures

http://www.creationproof.com/id24.html

probably some of this

[Cyberman]

Humans are apes.

https://iho.asu.edu/

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/nick.he.html

http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/Human...ctures.htm

[Revelation777]

Ah... here they come!
The hounds of the creationist!

"kind"? What the heck does that mean? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Class? Phylum? Kingdom? or Domain?

Second, there are a myriad of transitional fossils collecting dust in museums all over the world!
Here's just one example for which we do have fossils, The elephant:

---

---

On top of that, fossilization is an extremely rare event. Just think of all the humans from before the 20th Century for which fossils have been found... and all those that have vanished.
Given that it is rare, some holes are expected in the fossil record. The amazing thing is that we have so few holes as we do!

Last, the trilobite... what have they done to you, to deserve such unflattering representation?
They show up on the fossil record around 521 million years ago. Remember when I said fossilization is a rare event? Well, the farther back in time we go, the harder it is to find fossils... and this was a time on the planet's history when all life was underwater, making it even more difficult to generate fossils...
Just because we have no fossil evidence, it doesn't mean that they didn't evolve from something else.... what it was, we may never know... it may be lost to geology and plate tectonics and erosion.

You do know what a fossil is, don't you?

drawings of foot bones and sketches are unconvincing to me

---

Enen if there is a creator I wouldn't call it intelligent design. It's more like an evil dumbass went on a disease and inhospitable environment creating rampage. I'd call it retarded design.

I respectfully disagree, if you lived back in the Garden my money would be you would of been in complete awe and wonderment.

---

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions.

What do you mean "appearing suddenly" in the fossil record. Are you suggesting there was a "time" in the fossil record when there were no trilobytes, but at a later time, there were trilobytes? Sounds like evolution to me.

Actually evolution would expect creatures over time transitioning into a trilobyte, instead, we just find trilobytes...sounds like Creation to me.

---

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.

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

[Cyberman]

Sounds like someone's been huffing Ken Ham's fumes to me.

[Revelation777]

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.

If more primitive ancesters of trilobites were found some time in the future, dating to before when you and your ilk thought there was a "sudden appearence", would you then admit transitional form exists and the biblical creation thereby proven to be bullshit?

If not, then how ingenuous can be possibly be in raising these objections?

there are changes that happen within species, but not species into a different species

[Rampant.A.I.]

I thought this thread was going to be an argument, not a bunch of unsupported assertions.

That, to me, indicates a complete failure to present a compelling argument. So argument 1 has been an utter failure.

He's now just repeating the same assertions that have already been knocked down, such as having different expectations what to see with Evolution, because he gets his understanding of Evolution from

ANSWERS IN GENESIS