What transitional form will we have this week?

a reply to: Astyanax

"Doubtless there are inconstencies in taxonomics, gaping holes in the fossil record, controversy over results from molecular biology, disagreements about punctuated equilibrium, etc. In time, the disagreements will be resolved by new evidence and the debaters will move on to wrangle about something else. This is the very stuff of science; it is how we make progress. Science, like the objects it studies, evolves.

In contrast, all creationists can ever do is find more inconsistencies and present them to evolutionary science, saying 'how do you explain this? They have no falsifiable theory of their own, you see, no explanation for the vast body of consistent evolutionary evidence from biology, palaeontology, geology, physics and other sciences that a brainy nine-year-old would not find risible. All they can do is heckle from the margins."

so science is chasing it's tail. got it. a scavenger hunt.

yeah, creationists ask questions to the almighty neo-darwinists, why not?
don't you guys want that or you want to tell everyone, this is how it is, until next tuesday.

sounds like jealousy to me.

a reply to: pause4thought

"On the other hand, if snakes and lizards are descended from one original 'kind', the progenitors simply contained sufficient genetic information to allow for very diverse arrangements of musculature, etc. As to ability to live in and out of water, land and sea snakes, for example, may have started as separate 'kinds'. Alternatively the genes may have been there for both at the beginning. "

hey! how come there are lizards and snakes still around together?

according to "them" there should be no lizards.

which lizard tuned into a snake?

a reply to: tsingtao

I'm hoping that's a sarcastic joke.

originally posted by: tsingtao
a reply to: pause4thought

"On the other hand, if snakes and lizards are descended from one original 'kind', the progenitors simply contained sufficient genetic information to allow for very diverse arrangements of musculature, etc. As to ability to live in and out of water, land and sea snakes, for example, may have started as separate 'kinds'. Alternatively the genes may have been there for both at the beginning. "

hey! how come there are lizards and snakes still around together?

according to "them" there should be no lizards.

which lizard tuned into a snake?

You know, just because one group of lizards evolved to become snakes, doesn't mean that all lizards did so. Evolution doesn't effect the entire species the same. It just effects localized groups of them. One group of lizards in one area of the world becomes snakes, while other groups keep their legs because they didn't develop that mutation in their localized group. OR the lizards that didn't evolve into snakes had an evolutionary advantage on par with the ones that did evolve into snakes so the ones that didn't evolve continued to survive.

Stop looking at evolution as a linear process. It isn't a linear process. It is a tree process.

I thought someone would provide evidence by now, but instead just drawings. SMH

a reply to: strangechristian777

Don't they teach you guys reading comprehension, or is that aspect ignored in home schooling as well?

originally posted by: strangechristian777
I thought someone would provide evidence by now, but instead just drawings. SMH

Evidence of what? Transitional fossils? That was provided in the OP when the OP said "here look at this." What exactly are you expecting, us to produce actual fossils or something on the internet?

Lately, I’ve been advocating the closure of the O&C Forum, which seems thoroughly moribund to me.

Sitll, I’ve always thought this thread, started by a formerly very active participant named madnessinmysoul, is a worthwhile effort, since Creationists are forever stating that an absence of transitional forms disproves evolutionary theory. Well, this thread is chock-full of transitional forms to prove them wrong.

Here is another, recently discovered in China: a turtle with half a shell.


Here’s a picture of what it might have looked like living:


It seems that turtles evolved their shells for digging, not protection. Fascinating article.