Transitional Fossils Do Exist Within The Fossil Record.

» Home » Science

The core component of the creationist’s argument that macroevolution is false rests with the false notation that the fossil record possesses no transitional fossils. Since this assertion is thrown around quite often on this site, I thought I’d clear the entire “problem” up by presenting some these transitional fossils that supposedly do not exist within the fossil record itself. Please view my post under this debating topic for the explanations about this subject that appear to be very much needed.

Hizashi

24 Apr 2008 00:02

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

I've just taken the time to read all the posts under this debate and must say that Hizashi's points are very impressive and certainly get my vote.

Evileye

05 Oct 2008 17:49

Add a Comment

All fossils are transitional. Or are you claiming that humans are the end product of evolution?

We're not. We're just the current dominant model until we're rendered extinct and replaced.

28 Apr 2008 20:44

1 Comment

I claimed no such thing.

Hizashi

28 Apr 2008 21:21

Comment

As an avid fossil hunter myself, I know that not only is fossilization a rare occurrence but not all fossils are well preserved. Fossils get worn down by the elements, bones get scattered, and can be difficult to find. However, with that said there are paleontologist out in the most arid of places searching for missing links, and they are being found. One of my favorites is with the Evolution of Cetacea, how they have gone from being land based mammals to being marine mammals is fascinating, and well documented. Fossils that are transitional have been found from the Pakicetus a decendent of the modern day Cetacea, all the way up until now. Wikipedia has further explanation on it. Great debate Hizashi, can't wait to see some more creationist chime in, if they do.

Andromeda

24 Apr 2008 20:17

2 Comments

Most creationists probably won’t attempt to speak much on this debate, since the evidence against their theory is within plain sight. However, if they do post within this debate, they most likely won’t address any of the evidence I’ve given. Instead, they’ll probably either ignore it all together and bring up another “flaw” with evolution in a desperate attempt to draw our attention away from the point of the debate itself or simply just claim that the evidence presented is wrong for reasons they undoubtedly won’t, or can’t, explain (such as Codeman's argument on the other side of this debate).

Hizashi

24 Apr 2008 20:45

Comment

Excellent stuff Hizashi.

You know already that you will be requested for more or you will be told it is not enough. Far easier than being wrong.

I tried to explain to Stranger earlier (perhaps this prompted you to start/clear up this debate) why there are not the millions of fossils that he requires and how remarkable the fossilization process is. Could you elaborate on this?

StBalders

24 Apr 2008 01:15

1 Comment

Let someone request more transitions, because there is indeed a lot more that I haven't listed yet. Even so, those who support Intelligent Design and creationism on this site didn’t just say there was a lack of transitions within the fossil record, they claimed that there wasn’t any at all, which I believe I have already demonstrated to be incorrect. As for your request, let me start by saying that the formation of fossils aren’t necessarily common. Fossilization requires certain conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or somewhere near these habitats will probably not be preserved (or if so it would be only on rare occasions). Other processes destroy fossils as well. Erosion (or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. It must also be noted that evolution does not require a continuity of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record, contrary to what creationists enjoy claiming. As worded by an evolutionary biologist within a debate with a creationist “You come to a baseball game during the fourth inning and afterwards claim that the previous 3 innings must not have occurred since you didn’t directly witness them.” Even with gaps, which are entirely expected by paleontologists, the fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the most logical conclusion when the same reasoning is applied to their own "theory": If the gaps in the fossil record are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

Hizashi

24 Apr 2008 01:34

Comment

Most creationists have never even looked at the fossil record nor do they understand how fossils are formed, they just believe whatever lies come down from the pulpit and demand that there can't be any transitionals because their particular interpretation of the Bible says so.

There was a similar debate a couple of months ago where some creationist demanded there were no transitional forms and I did an entry on my blog detailing the transitional sequence for whales. As far as I know, the creationist ignored it entirely, or at least didn't feel compelled to respond at all. It's a lot easier to pretend there are no transitionals than to actually find out if your beliefs are true.

Cephus

24 Apr 2008 00:41

Add a Comment

The most irritating thing is that creationists don't seem to appreciate how difficult it is for a fossil to form. This is illustrated by the fact that we have only a single (and often incomplete) fossil of some species of dinosaur etc. Of course there won't be a neat and clearly laid out fossil record, but that doesn't disprove evolution. Also, there are certain records that are almost complete like the evolution of horses for example. Even one complete record for a group of animals proves evolution.

sensai80

24 Apr 2008 00:17

1 Comment

Precisely. The problem with creationists, however, is that they don’t ever appear to be satisfied. Every time new transitional fossils are found that support the evolutionary process, creationists always ask for more. If we were to find five new transitional fossils tomorrow, creationists would request five more before they claim they would be convinced, then after five more were presented they would ask for even more. It’s a endless cycle of ignorance.

Hizashi

24 Apr 2008 00:44

Comment

'The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould)

v00v

26 Nov 2008 01:18

7 Comments

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Sunderland)

v00v

26 Nov 2008 01:19

Comment

It sure took you a long time, since the first post I mentioned this debate in, to type up a response Voov. I think you’re trying too hard to find some way to discredit evolution, and, in the process, not thinking enough. At first, you said there were no transitional fossils at all. Now that I have actually placed the evidence right in front of you, you’re basically saying “Oh, well, it’s not enough”. Either way, let me explain a few things to you about transitional fossils you don’t appear to understand.

First off, a “transitional fossil” is, in keeping with what the Theory of Evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. By that definition, we have many transitional fossils. I’ve listed multiple ones for you. I can list even more if you’d like. Second, there are many gaps in the fossil record. No one argues that. However, no one expects all the gaps to be filled. To claim all the gaps within the fossil record should be filled at this point is to claim we should have discovered all species to have ever walked this planet by now. Of course the gaps aren’t, and probably won’t anytime soon, filled. Third, there are things about fossilization you don’t appear to be taking into account. Fossilization is not necessarily a common event. It requires particular conditions in order to occur. Some conditions are more common in certain environments than others. Also, many types of animals are fragile and don’t preserve well. There are also processes that destroy fossils to consider as well, such as erosion.

So, considering what I’ve explained above and what you don't appear to understand, I feel the need to ask you again Voov. Have you ever researched evolution on any unbiased sites? All you seem to do is quote other people when arguing against it most of the time. When presented with evidence you claim doesn’t exist, you often fall back to another argument entirely, completely ignoring the fact that you were wrong to begin with. For example, you claimed there were no transitional fossils at all. I listed some for you. You fell back onto the argument that there should be more transitional fossils rather than considering the fact that you were wrong from the beginning. It’s almost like you actually searched the internet for an excuse to use once you saw the list of transitional fossils.

Comment

There are no trnsitional fossils. If macroevolution happened, we'd find more transitionals than regular fossils.

webman1200

11 Oct 2008 15:40

1 Comment

What do you mean by regular fossils? All fossils we find and all species alive today are transitional. There is no endpoint.

Andromeda

16 Oct 2008 04:53

Comment

I have several problems with your claim, although it is a modest claim at that. You are not claiming that the fossil record is adequate to to say the preponderance of evidence support macroevolution.

Problem 1. I don't know if you have clearly defined "transition species" and how does one know that it is truly transitional and not just an example of homology?

Problem 2. How can you explain why there are not billions and billions (Saganism) of transitional species that have the following characteristics. I'll use an example here. Let say you have a whale-like creature and one posits that this whale-like creature is the ancestor to this large hippopotamus--because of homological similarities. Now, the question I have are where are all the transitions like two fins and two legs and one partial fin and partial leg and all the other in between transitional examples that are necessarily required for Darwin's macroevolution to be true based on proposed Darwinian mechanisms. There should be millions of "transitional" species to one complete structure. All we see are complete structures. This requires adequate explanation.

Problem 3: It is not the ID experts who claim the fossil record inadequate, but your own Darwinian paleontologists and bioevolutionists. Why would they do this, if they didn't have strong evidence.

charlee

25 Apr 2008 14:05

3 Comments

Charlee, you don’t appear to have read hardly any of the posts or comments within this debate, much less present a valid objection to anything that has been covered.

1) I gave the meaning of a transitional fossil within the first paragraph of my post on this topic. The paragraph was actually a quote from one of our previous debates.

2) I explained in a my comment under StBalders’ post why there are not “billions and billions” of transitional fossils.

3) A great deal of Intelligent Design supporters use the claim that the fossil record has no transitional fossils all the time. The reason most of them do this is because transitions within the fossil record itself do not support the idea of a single “creation time” for the species of the planet.

Hizashi

25 Apr 2008 21:23

Comment

So, overall, your argument would consist of “I don’t believe what you say, therefore, it isn’t true”? A priceless creationist argument in the making.

“This is totally inadequate. You are saying that the fossil record that would support the logical type of creatures I described, is not there because some conditions didn't allow it or it is happening somewhere else, etc. etc. Always excuses. Guess what---macroevolution can't be always happening somewhere else.. enough excuses already.”

That’s it? The best criticism you can come up with is saying that the explanations I gave you are excuses (you failed to state why though)? I suppose you must have ran out of decent criticisms around this point.

“As I mentioned these criticisms of the fossil recorded come from your experts and not mine”

Oh, right. You mean the total of FOUR people you mentioned within our previous debate that don’t seem to find the fossil record adequate?

“By the way, regarding your number 3 above, the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record is quite problematic for Macroevolutionism in that it does indeed support a "single creation moment".…”

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago, but it was not the origin of complex life. Even so, there are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods. As you can see, the Cambrian explosion is hardly worth even being considered “evidence” against macroevolution at all.

Well, Charlee, I noticed that you failed to address any of the transitional fossils I listed within my post on this debate. I also noticed that you failed to explain why any of my explanations I gave you were “inadequate” (calling something an excuse doesn’t explain anything). As I told Andromeda before anyone had even posted on the “I’m Against It” side of this debate, “However, if they do post within this debate, they most likely won’t address any of the evidence I’ve given. Instead, they’ll probably either ignore it all together and bring up another “flaw” with evolution in a desperate attempt to draw our attention away from the point of the debate itself or simply just claim that the evidence presented is wrong for reasons they undoubtedly won’t, or can’t, explain”. You, in fact, did both Charlee.

Let me tell you why I don't believe the fossil record supports evolution.
Sensai80, you said "...creationists don't seem to appreciate how difficult it is for a fossil to form." Well I don't think naturalist seem to appreciate how complex DNA is. DNA is made up of information about a living thing.
1. Now for that information to end up in order to create a species by chance is impossible.
2. DNA can mutate, but for evolution to be possible information would have to be added. Example the sinosauropteryx prima which is covered with feathers, you clame this is a "dinosaur-bird transition". That's impossible because for a dinosaur to gain feathers information would have to be added to the DNA and information can only be taken away. You can't add information to DNA.

codeman

24 Apr 2008 07:08

1 Comment

Your accusations about natural selection not being capable of adding information couldn’t be anymore false. It’s very difficult to understand how anyone could possibly make such a claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome, some subtract it. Creationists only get by with this ridiculous claim by leaving the term "information" undefined (as you did), impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, by which long stretches of DNA are copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations. It’s not that creationists don’t want to accept the fact that mutations can not only subtract “information”, but can add it as well, it’s that they can’t accept this fact simply because it doesn’t support the idea of creationism itself. On another point you mentioned, “irreducible complexity” is meaningless and serves no purpose when arguing for Intelligent Design, or against evolution. How does the complexity of DNA support the idea that evolution could not have occurred? In fact, the evolution of an organism would be a reason to expect complexity. You’ve demonstrated, quite openly, that the only reason you don’t accept evolution and its wide variety of supporting evidence is because you don’t understand it.

Hizashi

24 Apr 2008 07:36

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?