Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

Prediction; they will continue to find either extinct new forms we never knew about, or known forms, but they will not find any intermediate forms because it's clear they simply never existed.


We’ve already found a multitude of intermediate forms so it seems a bit bizarre to make a prediction that doesn’t even get off the starting block.

I think your problem is that you are picturing evolution in a very one dimensional way. Your objections that there is a lack of transitionals relative to “complete” forms in the fossil record would only carry any weight if evolution of a particular lineage always proceeded at a consistent rate while at each and every point on that line the representative species were equally abundant and widespread. In other words you are only looking at this from a purely temporal point of view when there is a spatial element as well.

Clearly, considering the special conditions required for fossilization coupled with the low liklehood of the specimen surviving erosional processes and actually being found we are more likely to find a particular fossil if the species was abundant and widely distributed.

Take your frequently stated example of the bat. Why do we only find fully formed bats you cry and no non flying ‘pre bats’ ? Well once evolution hits upon a highly advantageous formula (as would be the ability to fly, clearly) then it is likely that that first form would subsequently radiate into many bat species taking advantage of different niches, becoming widespread and abundant. However, the ‘pre bat’ may only have been a local population in a geographical limited area and/or adapted to a habitat not conducive to fossilisation like a forest. So logically, the “pre bat” is much less likely to be found as a fossil than the later “fully formed” bat of many species over a large range in different habitats. Still, very few of these will have been found as fossils but those found would appear to have no precursors due to statistical probability.

Clearly, examples of groups that are diverse, abundant and widespread are much more likely to be encountered than groups with opposite qualities ! Your wrong assumption is that everything through evolutionary history has been equally likely to be fossilised and found. That coupled with denial of the many intermediates that have been found, and denial of the robustness of our dating methods that shows the evolutionary pattern of first emergence of major groups in the fossil record allows you to remain in your creationist bubble.


  • Goku likes this

#22 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:24 PM

The absence of transitional forms between established species has traditionally been explained as a fault of an imperfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't.
- Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

the above quote came from a 1980 conference on macroevolution.

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,255 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

A thought experiment to do. Look at any human being and determine how many brothers, sisters, and offssppring they have. Do this for 50 people. Now ask those same people to verify your predictitons. Compare your predictions with their answers. Now you know the problem of claiming that one fossil is related to another. Evo makes a lot of assumptions like this and so it requires great faith to beleve what they claim as intermediates is not just another "just so" story (Unless evos are peychic?) LOL
 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users