Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[KichigaiNeko]

Strange coincidence.

We were watching a NOVA documentary on Darwin and what he didn't know last night.

Posit was that ALL four limbed creatures are descended from Tiktaalik. And all I could think of was "oh the irony that xtians have a fish as a symbol"

[Minimalist]

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.

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.

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.

Everything in this post is wrong, Every single thing.

Let me rephrase: Nothing about this post is right. Not one single thing.

Boru

What would you expect...look who posted it.

[Revelation777]

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.

I highly doubt the level of intelligence of a species will decide or not if they become extinct. I also don't understand how extinction supports evolution?

---

Everything in this post is wrong, Every single thing.

Let me rephrase: Nothing about this post is right. Not one single thing.

Boru

What would you expect...look who posted it.

If it supported your view then it would be right?

[Esquilax]

I highly doubt the level of intelligence of a species will decide or not if they become extinct.

So you're saying that the fact that we are smart enough to invent things and form highly technological societies played no part in our success as a species?

I also don't understand how extinction supports evolution?

It's more that it doesn't support intelligent design: the majority of creatures on this planet have failed and died off, something that the intelligent designer you're positing would know ahead of time, and yet still decided to waste his effort creating these species, that don't evolve, and so there was no need for him to do that.

The facts just don't support the idea that there's a conscious entity cooking up organisms.

[Jackalope]

The facts just don't support the idea that there's a conscious entity cooking up organisms.

That is, unless he's fond of failures.

[Revelation777]

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.

I believe creationists do believe and accept that there are indeed changes and transitions that take place within organisms. But would not evolution have to show that at some point there was an original organism from with all organisms would of eventually evolve from?

---

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.

Then maybe you should not read them?

[Jackalope]

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.

I believe creationists do believe and accept that there are indeed changes and transitions that take place within organisms. But would not evolution have to show that at some point there was an original organism from with all organisms would of eventually evolve from?

This question is specifically why I gave you the friendly advice to have an answer for the question of DNA retroviral insertions.

That you apparently did not take that advice is not my problem.

[Esquilax]

I believe creationists do believe and accept that there are indeed changes and transitions that take place within organisms. But would not evolution have to show that at some point there was an original organism from with all organisms would of eventually evolve from?

Nope; since evolution demonstrably happens, and genetic research shows plenty of commonalities, it's a pretty easy inference to then say that common ancestry is supported.

But evolution would still be happening, even if you were to prove common ancestry to be dead wrong.

[SteelCurtain]

I feel kind of gullible, Rev.

I actually had hopes (albeit small ones) that in these threads (for which you spent weeks preparing for, mind you) you were going to engage and actually debate. You were told in the other threads why Answers in Genesis, ICR, and Creationproof are not credible sources. These sites are not concerned with anything other than confirming their own bias. There is no science done there. And yet they are the first, and I'll add, only thing you responded with.

You told us you would engage. You told us no more one-line responses and cliched quips.

I guess you are really just a liar.

[Revelation777]

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?

Thank you for the nice response. Check out this article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...2/tetrapod