If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

a reply to: LABTECH767

If you look at the data, its not faulty. None of the explanations on why it was "faulty" actually are scientific

The fact remains, radio isotope testing is reliable. No one has been able to prove otherwise.

a reply to: Noinden

Well talk about arguing a point even if it is not as solid as you are postulating, if we can model a universe in which time is not a constant variable, in which isotopic decay rate therefore is also not variable.
In which the rate of decay can be modified by external stimuli then you have to admit that over longer term analysis based on isotopic dating then the result's are likely to less reliable over a longer period, as you know carbon 14 is only reliable up to about 500 years after which it's dating fall's off, argon/kryption a method which was trialled for dating stone atmospheric exposure to date stone (very problematic due to the fact that the surface of the stone being dated is constantly worn away by exposure) is also only reliable up to a point beyond which it too loses accuracy, mostly it is down to external stimuli, the background radiation despite our natural electromagnetic shield for example is also variable due to solar activity and other extre solar activity, for example though life is present upon the earth we have no idea how many time's distant neutron star's have bathed our world in there thankfully diluted radiation and indeed we do not yet have a reliable backgroud map of the radiation fields of our own area in the universe or there relative motion in relation to our own solar system and of course there ARE terrestrial factor's as well such as geological energy from earthquake's which can of coure have other effect's upon the radiation dating methodology and also biological in the case of carbon 14, in the case of the Turin shroud you must also recognize the probability that the high level of smoke in the old wooden and stone cathedral as it burned down would have carried air born carbon 14 particles and also that the shroud as evidenced by the burn damaged was also exposed to this smoke at least peripherally.

In a controlled environment such as we may use to monitor one of our control sample's the rate is predictable and stick's almost exactly to the base line of the standard radioactive decay curve model as there is no fault in that theory but as you know in the real world there are indeed external stimuli which can throw the best science prediction's and also if the admittedly pseudo scientific postulation's of the brane theory are correct then there may also be quantum fluctuation's which may impact the very law's of our reality itself, we for example if the brain theory is correct do not know if certain universal law's may be weakening or strengthening over time (As seen from our perspective) as it may be interpreted to postulate, for example as two branes come into collision or there collision seperates and how there proximity (level of interaction) may cause this interchange between these branes (Which may be the fundemental basis of our laws) to flucuate.

I'm sure this has already been said, but the Lucy fossil was only about 40% complete and the skull was almost completely missing.

Lucy Fossil

The evidence for missing links is, well, missing. Assumptions are made and then accepted as fact because it fits the evolutionary theory - completely backward science.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
The OPs question was:

If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

This is fundamentally flawed. The OP should have asked:

If God did it why are there so many transitional fossils?

This

a reply to: cooperton
Right...because Lucy is the only exemplar of A. Afarensis remains ever found right? Site AL 333 in Ethiopia for example, yielded the remains of 13 individuals from the one site. The entire species morphology wasn't determined solely by Lucy. That's not how it works.
AL 333

The reason evidence of missing links is nonexistent is because in Anthropology, we aren't looking for a term that doesn't exist within the discipline.

The only assumption here is yours in regards to how the science be is done. You make it seem like there's a set narrative that we start with and just fill in the blanks and ignore everything that doesn't jive with MES. If that were the case, we would still be operating under anachronisms like Clovis First. We would have ignored all of the evidence for Pleistocene admixture events. The notion is ridiculous.

The entire concept of a missing link is based on anachronistic presupposition that there should be a direct line from A to B and that just isn't how evolution works. There are several species of Australopithecines example for who were living contemporaneously as well as A. Sediba who was still hanging around when H. Habilis was roaming E. Africa 1.9 MA.

Also, the link you posted gives some rather poor context for Lucy. Here is the reconstruction that toured the US from 2007-2013 The placement of the foramen magnum and angle of pelvic tilt are key indicators of Lucy's bipedalism.

a reply to: peter vlar

There are two side's and both poke fun at one another, the sheep that follow the evolutionary theory and the sheep that follow the creationist theory..

But of course there are also the sheep that seek there own answer's and often find unexpected thing's.
Personally I think the artist's impression of this homo erectus look's a lot like many people today, of course I am open minded as to whether or not that catagorizes it as a person or if it was really more of an animal.
www.theguardian.com...
But the presence of simple tool' mean's person to me, probably simple minded compared to modern human's but still.
www.ancient-hebrew.org...
www.wanttoknow.info...
Personally I think it is more a case of certain people not wanting there credential's thrown out of the window or to lose there nice warm chair's.

The case for and against evolution and human origin are far from closed though there has been a very aggressive secular move to force it is science fact and not science theory in order to displace religious education which these same secularist's are trying to sideline as fairy tale's and superstition's.
Media is these day's mainly a secular forum as indeed are most if not all educational foundation's and institutions in the west and so called developed world.

a reply to: LABTECH767

There are two side's and both poke fun at one another, the sheep that follow the evolutionary theory and the sheep that follow the creationist theory..

The difference is, one flock of sheep are expected to fallow without question, based on faith.
While the later group of sheep are expected to follow the evidence, regardless of their faith.
The sheep with the evidence are also expected to question the evidence and are free to look for themselves if it's correct or not.
This is bad for the faith based sheep cause they could end up learning the grass is greener on the other side and abandon the flock.

a reply to: flyingfish

No actually both are following by faith and indoctrination, we call it education and yes one can be supported by specific interpretation of artifact's but so too can the other.

I love Einstein at time's like this it is just a matter of perspective and both perspectives are schewed I am sorry to say.

As for the grass greener on the other side, prove it?.

(i'll be over here eating my banana and making your monkey jealous).

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
Right...because Lucy is the only exemplar of A. Afarensis remains ever found right? Site AL 333 in Ethiopia for example, yielded the remains of 13 individuals from the one site. The entire species morphology wasn't determined solely by Lucy. That's not how it works.
AL 333

So they found a few teeth and skull fragments at the AL 333 site and claim it is a transitional humanoid - A. Afarensis? This does not bother you that they jump to conclusions with such an incomplete fossil?

the most complete AL-333 "First Family" skull

^The more I learn about archaeology the more I realize the vast pool of assumptions they are swimming in. Thank you for pointing me to this.

Educate yourself;
Transitional fossils
Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: NotTooHappy

Holy thread necromancy bat man, this one is not quite fossilized however

Here are some transitional fossils for you, from land mammals to whales: