Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

quote:

---

First of all, we can talk about all the species here since evolution holds that all things evolve. Second, the strata is given a date dependent upon many variables not limited to erosion, continental drifts and upheavles etc. Therefore, many assumptions are made as to the actual date a specimen is deposited. Think about the fossils that are found spreading across more than one strata level. How old are they? Lets get back to this idea of progressive steps though in the evolutionary model. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

---

Sediment layers are given a date by the igneous rock above and below the sediments. Please show how erosion et al can affect dating of igneous rock. The polystrate fossils are centuries old, and show how sediment slowly built up around them in their rooted position. Hardly a problem for science. Polystrate schoolhouses can be found in certain parts of the world, covered by numerous ash flows.

quote:

---

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had.

---

Do a search for "mudskippers". These are excellent examples of an extant species that has both amphibian and fish characteristics.

quote:

---

Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possess.

---

Perhaps you have heard of the Archeopteryx fossils, they show exactly this.

quote:

---

Now if evolution is correct, we should be able to see these changes in any given species if given enough time. Correct? If however we find that there are no changes (I am speaking of MACRO evolution here (a change from one species into another through the mechanism of natural selection not MICROevolution-changes within a species)then I think one should question what they have been LEAD TO BELIEVE to be true.

---

We have observed speciation. This is the only barrier to the production of divergent body plans. Macroevolution is speciation, since this is the only observable barrier to evolution.

quote:

---

Remember, everyone has an agenda. I am not trying to convince you of God's existance, I am trying to convince you that just becuase someone says a thing that doesn't mean it is true. Reality(What is real) is true.

---

And the truth is written into the rocks and each species genome. You might want to consult those sometime. Wanting an ancient text to be true doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

I would have to be pretty ignorant to make a claim "that it has both reptile and bird traits." Here is why-sorry I keep linking, but they say it much metter than I can.

---

You might want to check out the site below. It details actual morphological characteristics that actually make Archeopteryx more reptillian than you may want to admit. 18 features are shared between reptiles and archeopteryx, most of which are not shared with extant bird species.All About Archaeopteryx

quote:

---

Just because some organism has some features of another organism does not mean there is a direct or even an indirrect connection between the two.

---

So this means that you can handwave any transitional fossil there is. Why do creationists ask for examples of transitional fossils when they can just claim "Well, it doesn't mean they were related just because they shared some of the same parts." Creationists say this even though they know that is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution was correct. It seems that YEC's don't ask for evidence, they just look for the next excuse to handwave evidence.

ex libres,What would you expect from a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds? You would expect features that correspond to both, correct? This is what we find with Archaeopteryx.From Talkorigins.comIt is not 100% dinosaur and not 100% bird, just as we would expect with a transitional fossil. What are the dinosaurian characteristics that are not shared by any extant bird species, you ask (from talkorigins.org):1. Lack of a bill.2. Trunk region vertebrae are not fused.3. Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.4. Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.5. Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.6. Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).7. Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.8. Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum9. The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae!10. Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.11. Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).12. Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.13. Claws on 3 unfused digits.14. The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.15. Metatarsals (foot bones) free.16. Gastralia present. Gastralia are "ventral ribs."So, as you can see, 16 distinct reptillian characteristics are present in archaeopteryx that are not present in any present day bird. Now, why is this not a transitional fossil?[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-02-2004]

quote:

---

Oops, I realized I may still be skirting. I do not believe it to be a transitional form because you, nor anyone else has shown it to be in a line of transition. It has both bird and reptile features which can tell us one of three things. One, it is a bird with reptile features. Two, it is a reptile with bird features. or Three, it is a unique species which is now extinct having no transitional link to either dinos or birds. I opt for three.

---

You forgot number four. That Archy shares a common reptillian ancestor with all other birds. If you want to call it a unique species, you will probably do so with every transitional fossil we present. This is very disingenuous on the part of creationists, ask for transitionals and after being presented with one, call it a unique species that is now extinct. Quite the handwaving. Archy represents exactly what we would expect if reptiles were the ancestors of modern birds. Dead end or in a line of transitionals does little to refute this point.

quote:

---

The platapus One, is it a duck with beaver or muskrat features? Two, is it a beaver or muskrat with duck features? or Three, a unique species with features of both? Now, I don't think you would ever try to claim if after finding a fossil in a million years of one of these creatures that they evolved from a duck or a beaver just because they have some common characteristics. By the way, do you think the evolutionists in that future time would be able to reconcile how a mammle could lay eggs or would they even be able to know this fact based on the fossil this animal might leave?

---

Number one, platypi do not have beaks. It is covered in skin, just like every other mammal, unlike the duck which is covered in bone. Number two, they are not a direct descendant of beavers, although they do share a common ancestor with all mammals. The fact that platypi lay eggs even more closely ties us in to our common ancestry with reptiles, since reptiles also lay eggs. It has been made obvious, by your lack of knowledge of the platypus, that your knowledge of mammalian anatomy and physiology is lacking. If you think systematics is so poor that they will use superficial characteristics to classify organisms, then you are sadly mistaken.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-02-2004]

quote:

---

"Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of useful and functioning structures found also in other creatures, not a transition between them. A true transitional structure would be, say, a sceatherthat is, a half-scale, half-featheror a linghalf-leg, half-wingor, perhaps a half-evolved heart or liver or eye. Such transitional structures, however, would not survive in any struggle for existence (1996, 2:70)."
  —Morris and Morris via ex libres

---

Again, more hand-waving. Archy obviously had already developed full feathers, as well as some characteristics found in birds. Archy also has obvious reptillian features. There is no such thing as a "half-evolved" structure. Everything IS fully evolved, as it has come about through evolutionary mechanisms. Therefore, such systems would operate just fine. If the Earth were around for another 4.5 billion years, would we look back and say that organisms today were only "half-evolved". I think not. This is more an expose on uninformed creationists than it is on the weak points of the Archy fossils.

quote:

---

When I look at nature, I see an all powerful God as its creator. When you look at nature you see a naturalistic process as its creator. Niether view-point can be PROVEN per-se. So when it comes down to it, we are both operating on faith.

---

Neither view is claimed to have been PROVEN, but one has been supported by the evidence while the other has been falsified by it. Evolution can be tested, which is all we want creationists to understand. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) has never been taken on faith, only on evidenciary support. ToE predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. What do we find? Transitional forms. ToE also predicts that these fossils should fall into a nested hierarchie (branching tree) and they do. ToE predicts that the genetic makeup of living species should reflect what we find in the fossil record, and it does. It is corroboration between independent tests and methodologies that adds reliability to the theory. ToE is not taken on blind faith, but rather as a consequence of the evidence. Creationism is taken on blind faith, and the evidence is either accepted or IGNORED, depending on how it fits the presupposition (based on blind faith) of the observer.An interesting article that you might want to read is Glenn Morton's Demon which is the story about a creationist who realized the vast amount of information he had to block out in order to keep his creationist view-point. It is this type of behavior that evolutionists show creationists time after time, the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution and FALSIFIES a young earth and special creation. It is not a matter of two different interpretations of the data, but of two different sets of data, one complete (evolution) and one incomplete (creationism). Just for one example, Archaeopteryx is considered a valid transitional form between reptiles and birds. Creationists scream at the top of their lungs that there are no transitionals, but yet when they are shown one they dismiss it. We (evos) are given one of two explanations. First, that Archie was simply a different kind of bird, a taxon unto its own. Or, that Archie is just a bird, no matter the number of reptile-only characteristics he has. What they have done is turn their argument of "no transitionals" to "we will never accept any fossil as transitional". Ignoring data is the last bastion of creationist hope.

Great post Sharon. Mind if I quote your post (especially the email from Thewissen) in other forums?