If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

originally posted by: secretbossReading "evolution" back into fossil finds is not science. You've reached the conclusion first and then forcing fossil finds to fit the conclusion. Thats circular reasoning.

As I'm certain has already happened, I'm going to have to say it: Apparently you know very little about how the Theory of Evolution "evolved" into the actual theory.

Second, It's funny how you cite that there is no physical evidence for evolution, yet you infer via your proposed question(s) in the OP and the forum in which you posted this that Creationism is the factual scenario, even though there is much less evidence (when compared to the preponderance of evidence for evolution) for that line of thinking.

So, what gives? Do you only hold evolution to a certain standard of empirical evidence, or all theories on how life arrived at the diversity that we witness today?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I have a feeling that the transitional fossils are less visible because *something* changed in the environment

Transitional fossils are less visible because change in populations are gradual, you're not going to suddenly see dramatic changes from one generation to the next, as the creationist would have us believe. All fossils are transitional.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: secretboss


You seem to think like no one is providing you with evidence. .

Thats because the evidence for millions of transitional forms has not been provided. Pointing at a bone and saying "theres your transitional form" isn't gonna work. Sorry.

You dont understand what a transitional form is. The archaeopteryx is flaunted as one transitional form between reptile and bird. According to evolutionists, there should be millions more.

Unless we find them all, evolution can be dismissed as pseudo-science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell me you didn't get sucked into this trolls world again? We just went through this with this lame baiter. Please folks, even thought he is new here, he might not be......

This guy is running the same evolution troll that I have seen 100 times before. Don't fall for it. He won't read your links. He has already made up his mind. He is a troll.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: secretbossReading "evolution" back into fossil finds is not science. You've reached the conclusion first and then forcing fossil finds to fit the conclusion. Thats circular reasoning.

So, what gives? Do you only hold evolution to a certain standard of empirical evidence, or all theories on how life arrived at the diversity that we witness today?

I'd love to believe in evolution. But in order to do so I need evidence. Lets start with the fossils of the millions of transitional forms that supposedly existed. Where are they? And sorry, a few bones and teeth are not proof that millions of transitional forms once existed.

a reply to: secretboss

Pointing at a bone and saying "theres your transitional form" isn't gonna work. Sorry.

You must first know what your looking at and have at least high school level comprehension of evolution.

You dont understand what a transitional form is.

You are the one who does not understand evolution, or what a transitional form is. Therefore lacking the proper education to classify fossils.

a reply to: secretboss

Evolutionists claim absurdities about birds evolving from reptiles

One word: Archeopteryx.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution; Isolation leads to unique evolution which is why countries like Australia and Madagascar have species that are endemic to their own landmass.

As for fossil evidence you need to realize that our planet has gone under major geological changes. You might find fossils in the Himalayas because they were at one stage underwater and you might find fossils in Antarctica because it was not always covered in ice. Tectonic activity could've dragged many fossils into the mantle which is why many fossils could be lost. If a lot can happen in the supposed six thousand years of Earths existence imagine what could happen in 500 million years?

a reply to: secretboss

I'd love to believe in evolution. But in order to do so I need evidence.

There are over 500 recognized scientific journals and over 126,000 documents reporting the results and evidence for evolution.

Here's a suggestion: pick out any paper in any one of the journals listed - then tell us why it's either dead wrong or hasn't provided evidence for the title subject.

originally posted by: secretboss

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: secretbossReading "evolution" back into fossil finds is not science. You've reached the conclusion first and then forcing fossil finds to fit the conclusion. Thats circular reasoning.

So, what gives? Do you only hold evolution to a certain standard of empirical evidence, or all theories on how life arrived at the diversity that we witness today?

I'd love to believe in evolution.

hahaha nice try, but we know you dont really mean that.

conveniently enough, the user who posted directly above me has very thoughtfully spent considerable time and energy putting together a little website for people just like you. you really should check it out. the link is in his/her signature. wikipedia is also a pretty solid bet. but then again if you were big on independent research, this thread wouldnt be necessary would it?

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution is not a process with an end goal. It is always ongoing. Still if you want fossils that show a clear transition just look at hominids. We have a clear line of fossils going back to Australopithecus africanus.

a reply to: GreenGunther

Thank you so much for the response!

-Alee

originally posted by: secretboss

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: secretboss


You seem to think like no one is providing you with evidence. .

Thats because the evidence for millions of transitional forms has not been provided. Pointing at a bone and saying "theres your transitional form" isn't gonna work. Sorry.

Sure it does. Because all are transitional fossils.

You dont understand what a transitional form is. The archaeopteryx is flaunted as one transitional form between reptile and bird. According to evolutionists, there should be millions more.

There ARE millions more. All of them are transitional fossils. You still don't know what you are talking about (fun fact: trying to say I don't know what I'm talking about when you are the misinformed one just makes you look silly). Since evolution NEVER stops all fossils are in transition to something else. That's how it works.

Unless we find them all, evolution can be dismissed as pseudo-science.

Lol. Fossils aren't pokemon. Go study this topic a bit more. You are seriously ill-equipped to discuss this topic.

a reply to: olbe66

Oh no #. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing. You don't see me posting any links to him? Of course not. I know better than to put out effort to debate people like the OP. They are just looking to have an argument. So I'll give him one that makes him look as silly as possible.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing here. This isn't my first rodeo.

Wow, and you got flags and stars.

That is scary.

You should go to the Museum of Natural History.

a reply to: secretboss

The proof is hidden in the Vatican archives, right next to the proof about the talking snake, the boat that was capable of holding and supporting 20 million animals, immaculate conception, the history of jewish slaves in Egypt and other provable christian "truths."

Another question: If Adam had XY chromosomes, and I was made from his rib, why do I have XX chromosomes?

a reply to: secretboss

Quite a few people have addressed the realities of both (a) the physical evidence that does exist, and (b) the rarity of the combination of perfectly timed events that must happen in order to create a fossil.

If you fail to accept either of those as an answer to your question, then there's nothing that I can add to the table that will change your mind.

I do, however, live 20 minutes away from the Creation Museum and actually sat through a 2-hour presentation by an employee of the CM to my wife's old church on the "evidence" supporting Creationism. Any belief system that uses things like a calcified hat (and calls it a "fossilized hat") found in a mining tunnel as evidence to support their claims is obviously not scientifically advanced in their understandings of much. Had my wife not been there (and I only went so that she wouldn't be alone), I would have stood up and walked out about 10 minutes into the presentation, it was that scientifically ridiculous.

So, believe what you will, but if you're trying to use scientific evidence to decide between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution, and you are siding on the Creationism belief, I'm uncertain that any scientific evidence will sway you to the other side.

originally posted by: secretboss

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: secretbossReading "evolution" back into fossil finds is not science. You've reached the conclusion first and then forcing fossil finds to fit the conclusion. Thats circular reasoning.

So, what gives? Do you only hold evolution to a certain standard of empirical evidence, or all theories on how life arrived at the diversity that we witness today?

I'd love to believe in evolution. But in order to do so I need evidence. Lets start with the fossils of the millions of transitional forms that supposedly existed. Where are they? And sorry, a few bones and teeth are not proof that millions of transitional forms once existed.

So the bones showing how man evolved isn't good enough? You want ALL fossilized species ever to walk/swim/fly on this blue/green orb before you will ever consider this to be the most logical outcome of all the evidence?

I might be confused about what you are trying to understand.

Are you saying that evolution isn't correct because you haven't seen ALL fossils ever?

or

Are you saying that you are not aware of ANY evidence to support evolution?

a reply to: ReprobateRaccoon

that definition is misleading anyway. homo sapien did not evolve from apes. homo sapiens and some species of ape share a common ancestry.

Of course birds come from reptiles. Lmfao. All you have to do is search it on Google and see the experiment where they activated dorment genes in a chicken and it grew scales and teeth.

Man I love narrow minded creationists. Can't look past the first youtube video they see and start a thread without any attempt to research.

You aren't after proof. You are just here to troll. If you wanted to learn you never would have started a thread and would have found the answers to your points within 5 minutes.

Do these people realise what goes into a car?

a reply to: secretboss

I'll tell you how you can be certain there's no evidence of evolution.

If there was a single shred of proof ... the evolutionists would have it right in your face.

Anybody stuck evidence in your face? There's your answer.