I've often heard as a rejection of evolution: Well there should be thousands of transitional fossils. My response: How would you know if they were?
So we can see some very dramatic examples of "transitional" forms in animals like Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik. Animals which are displaying signature examples of anatomy which are characteristic of two or more different groups. But leaving aside the normal observation that fossilization is incredibly rare and discovery/description rarer still, my question for creationists who think there ought to be transitional forms littering the landscape is this: [b][i]How do you know you[u] aren't[/u] looking at thousands of transitional forms?[/i][/b] Without seeing the animals directly on either side of this one...how would you determine whether or not it's transitional? Evolution predicts that genotypic change will be gradual, much less phenotypic change...so how does the creationist reasonably conclude that specimen [i]I[/i] is not transitional between specimen [i]H[/i] and [i]J[/i]?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
❤️ If human bodies change because of various natural changes around the globe living apart on the continents, disease, and nutrition, how does that prove macro evolution that we came from the pond? Those aren't fossils that prove macro evolution. Those are adaptive changes that resulted in God moving the continents apart because of the sin of Babel's tower, "continental drift". 😁
Well the question applies to all the fossil remains we've found and how a creationist would identify any particular one as one of the "thousands of transitional fossils"
As for the picture of hominid skulls i posted, while many lived at different times, they did tend to live in the same places Secondly, the differences we're seeing there are not minor variations in phenotype that one might expect from the same species adapting to a different environment (eg Bengal and Siberian tigers) and nor are they the result of morbidity ...most of those skulls simply lack the requisite characteristics to be considered a human.... but as we go down the line we that they have more and more of those characteristics in a mosaic of basal and derived traits that eventually arrive at anatomically modern human. So it's actually a perfect example showing "transitional forms" in the fossil record...which is why i used it lol
[quote]God moving the continents apart because of the sin of Babel's tower, "continental drift[/quote]
Oh that reminds me. I need to make a thread about that because continental drift is a huge problem on a YEC time scale.
@Pikachu Ok great, that proves we came from the pond 😂
[quote]the question applies to all the fossil remains we've found and how a creationist would identify any particular one as one of the "thousands of transitional fossils" [/quote]
[quote]Ok great, that proves we came from the pond 😂[/quote]
lol your effort to deflect through sarcasm is noted but remains insufficient to refute the logic of the evidence and my explanation thereof😜
[quote]We wouldn't[/quote]
Agreed. Or rather, creationists [i]can't[/i]. In which case why do creationists keep deploying this as an argument against evolution?🤨
[quote] let's move on to continental drift[/quote]
Not in this thread. I'll make a new one for it. Suffice to say here that to achieve the amount of tectonic shift known, the plates would have had to be moving at literally racecar speeds for a short period of time which would produce so much heat that the plates themselves would have melted.
"We can do ALL things through Christ who strengthens us"
God gives us wisdom and power if we trust in Jesus who strengthens us. We just don't jump to silly conclusions, or believe a lot of nonsense without asking God for wisdom.
[quote]"We can do ALL things through Christ who strengthens us" [/quote]
...except (apparently) justify how creationists can both declare that we ought to see thousands of transitional fossils while simultaneously having no means by which to distinguish if indeed we [i]do[/i]! 🤣
The point being, if one can't answer that question...maybe it's time to stop using that argument.
[quote] We just don't jump to silly conclusions,[/quote]
A conclusion arrived at through rigorous scientific study is not silly simply because it differs from the one you arrived at through faith🤷♀️
@Pikachu Don't believe everything you read in books just because a dude has a PHD, that's what I'd like to say to you. There are[i] not[/i] a lot of "fossils" that are considered "transitional", and I don't know what those pictures you have are all about.
I know for a fact they aren't something [i]between [/i] human and non human. I stand by Gods word that God made flying animals and sea animals the 5th day and on day 6 God made all other animals on earth, as well as humans. Those pictures might be some animals that went extinct after God made them on day 6. Or they might be humans that had deformities, diseases, or stunted growth because of nutritional deficiencies. We don't know, do we?
[quote]Don't believe everything you read in books just because a dude has a PHD, that's what I'd like to say to you[/quote]
If that's what you want to say to me then there is no issue because that is not why i believe what scientists say about evolution. I believe it because they can explain how they reach the conclusions they do and how the conclusions reached from one line of evidence correspond to various other independent lines of evidence. I believe it because they can use the conclusions they've reached to make predictions about what we will find in the future and those predictions are routinely verified. I believe it because there are no competing conclusions which can account for the evidence with the same consistency nor make predictions about the real world in the way that evolution science can.
[quote]I know for a fact they aren't something between human and non human[/quote]
No you don't. You [i]believe[/i] that for a fact because you "stand by Gods word". And that's fine. Just don't act like the conclusions reached by scientists which disconfirm that belief are silly or arrived at without scientific rigour.
@Pikachu OK answer me this, please. I just wrote this on another thread and I copied it for you. I am interested in what you think of this?
Evolutionists contradict themselves. Here is the definition of a species, a "kind" of animal. It has reproductive barriers (just as God said in Genesis). Yet evolutionists say they can, except when they say they can't 😂
Species Definition A species is a group of organisms that share a genetic heritage, are able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are also fertile. Different species are separated from each other by reproductive barriers. These barriers can be geographical, such as a mountain range separating two populations, or genetic barriers that do not allow for reproduction between the two populations. Scientists have changed their definition of a species several times throughout history.
Species is one of the most specific classification that scientists use to describe animals. Scientists use a system of binomial nomenclature to describe animals without the confusion of common names. This system uses the genus as the first name, which is always capitalized, and the species name is the second name, always lower case. Thus, some animals like the Red fox, Vulpes vulpes, are both in the genus Vulpes and their species name is vulpes. Note the capitalization difference to distinguish between genus and species. Other foxes such as the swift fox, Vulpes velox, are also part of the Vulpes genus, but barriers exist that keep them from interbreeding with the Red foxes. In this way, they remain distinct species.
@Pikachu[quote] Other foxes such as the swift fox, Vulpes velox, are also part of the Vulpes genus, but barriers exist that keep them from interbreeding with the Red foxes. In this way, they remain distinct species.[/quote] Here is an example so how can there be transitions?
@Carazaa It sounds like you're referring to the biological species concept which is pretty old at this point. Proposed in the 1940s. The definition that a species can only breed and produce viable offspring with a member of the same species is more a rule of thumb than a hard and fast requirement.
I think what you'll find is that scientists tend not to even consider species a real thing but rather a product of our urge to classify things. That is to say species are more or less a human construct designed to more easily classify different animals but many species are in fact so similar that consistent rules for what is a species and what is not are hard to lock down.
So it's not a contradiction by evolutionists of science. It's a misunderstanding of what science actually says about species.
@Pikachu Species don't interbreed, so its just as God says, after all. Even scientists agree with the Bible after all, except they wont admit it. yeah that's funny to me. 😂
...except that sometimes they do... A lion and a tiger can breed and even occasionally produce offspring that can breed with the parent species. Is that what god says?
@Pikachu No need because there are [b]none.[/b] There are other explanations for the "transitional" animals found like I said. There aren't many at all anyways so no need to dwell on something that doesn't exist. Life is too short 😁
[quote]Then they are the same "kind" just like he says[/quote]
Ok so what is a "kind"? We know it's a higher taxonomic level than species. Is it genus? Lions and tigers belong to genus panthera and they can interbreed. But they cannot interbreed with a cheetah which is genus Miracinonyx. But i'm sure you would call lions and tigers and cheetahs[i] cat[/i] "kind"....so what is a kind and how does science agree with this biblical classification?
You claim to be a logical person. Logically how can you conclude that there are no transitional fossils if you don't know what a transitional fossil [i][b]is[/b][/i]?😜 If you can't identify the criteria for inclusion, how can you logically conclude that those criteria are not met?
[quote]There aren't many at all anyways so no need to dwell on something that doesn't exist. Life is too short [/quote]
Now this is a logically incoherent statement. If it doesn't exist then there would be [i]no[/i] examples, not just "not many" lol. How many black swans does it take to prove that not all swans are white? Answer": not many😁
And don't worry about life being too short. You're going to live for eternity, right?
