"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!!!"???

[TB2]

Recently the topic of transitional forms ("missing links") came up, so I thought I'd post a separate thread on it since it's a common question that arises. I will cut to the chase.

1. It is false to state that there are no transitional forms. That is simply not true.

2. However, it is also true that gradualism is a failed prediction of Darwinism. Darwin's predicted we'd find the missing links, and we have found a number of them and continue to find more, but most are still missing.

3. However, more and more the 'saltationists' that Darwin rejected "natura non facit saltum!" ("Nature does nothing in jumps!")---are increasingly being vindicated. More and more evidence continues to mount that small genetic changes and tweaks in development pathways can result in large evolutionionary "leaps/jumps." Instead of gradualism, it does seem much evolution happens in jumps. A single mutation can change the location of body appendages or cause leg bones with musculature to develop in fish fins.

More to the point. The fossil record really only affords two options:

(1) Evolution (by nature and/or intelligent design); or

(2) "Progressive Creation"

If evolution is rejected, then that leaves God created a group of organisms most of which go extinct, and then God creates another group of organisms most of which go extinct, and then God creates another group of organisms most of which go extinct, and so on.

That's the basic pattern we see in the fossil record: succession of different paleocommunities of organisms. Like the Gabionta biota that appears then goes extinct. Then the Ediacaran biota that appears, persists for awhile, then goes extinct, then the Cambrian, then the Ordovician and so on. Paleocommunities appear, persist for awhile, then go extinct, only to be replaced by a new paleocommunity of organisms.

But back to the topic, yes, there are transitional forms, even though this is still denied by YECs, but after awhile the denial just becomes knee jerk and willful. Let me give an example:
 
The endlessly repeated "there are no transitional forms" mantra of YECs is an interesting study. First, the term "transitional form" is a slippery YEC term that YECs define in such a way as to make it impossible to ever demonstrate (even if we were just talking about human history and your own family tree!). But that aside, what I find interesting is how this YEC mantra persists regardless of how many "transitional" forms are found; which begs the question of how many "transitional" forms will it take to make a YEC happy before they're willing to acknowledge, "Okay, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related to each other"? And the answer, of course, is that no amount of "transitional" forms will ever be enough, because they've already pre-decided (before any evidence) that they are not related, no-way, no-how, no matter what.

The example that comes to mind is the origin of tetrapods (incorrectly called the "fish-to-amphibian" transition by YECs). And specifically I recall a picture in YEC Duane Gish's 1970s/1980s book "Evolution: the Fossils Say No!" that criticized the "lack of transitional/intermediate forms" between fish and tetrapods:

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

The Gish picture (figure 1) is still used by YECs today (figure 1 caption) to say "look, fully formed fins & feet with no intermediate transitional forms in between!"

Of course, Ichthyostega (discovered in 1932) was already old news, and before the days of the Internet information was harder to find, so perhaps Gish didn't know about Acanthostega (discovered 1952) which had characters intermediate between fish and Ichthyostega. Of course, once that discovery became more well known that still wasn't a good enough transitional form, so the YECs could still shout:

'THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then, of course, more discoveries were made, but for whatever reason these weren't good enough, or didn't count, or still left large "gaps," so YECs felt they could still confidently shout:

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then more discoveries were made...

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And still more discoveries were made (like the discovery of Tiktaalik in 2006)....

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

*So evolution keeps changing, while young earth creationism stays the same ("THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"), and apparently no amount of "transitional forms" will ever be enough to get YECs to acknowledge, "Hey, you know, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related." OR EVEN JUST, "I still disagree, but I can see why everyone else concludes that they're related."

 

[TB2]

The evidence for the fish-tetrapod transition has continued to increase over the last hundred years as more and more gaps keeps getting filled, and labs have discovered that changes in a single gene can cause leg bones and muscles to instantly appear in fish fins.

The discovery of Tiktaalik is an interesting example-- a missing link with fish and tetrapod traits that have earned it the name "fishapod." What's interesting is how it was discovered. Based on fossil fish lower in the fossil record (380 million years old), and tetrapods higher in the record (365 million years old), scientists predicted that this intermediate should exist and in sediments dated in between. The scientists went looking for this transition and picked research locations based on evolutionary predictions, and lo and behold, found Tiktaalik just as predicted. That is the sign of a good scientific theory: one that makes testable predictions that are then confirmed by the evidence.

 

[CrowCross]

The following story was written so a child could understand how the hogwash presented above is intended to destroy the Word of God and insert doctrines of demons in it's place. Often people masquerading as "angels of light" feel the need to push the atheistic view that animals evolved...man evolved.

Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.
Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked "Why the perplexed look Lenny?"
In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.
Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct LEGO animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the LEGO animals all but proved we’re all related. He said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendants of an original Lego organism.
Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each LEGO animal had the same type of feet. Each LEGO animal had the same square blocky head, each LEGO block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.
Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of LEGO people when Lenny blurted out with "Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common LEGO block?"
In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first LEGO man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the LEGO cow and the LEGO fish. No matter what is build from the LEGO blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember LEGO legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle
Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.

 

[TB2]

The following story was written so a child could understand how the hogwash presented above is intended to destroy the Word of God and insert doctrines of demons in it's place. Often people masquerading as "angels of light" feel the need to push the atheistic view that animals evolved...man evolved.

Just the other day Lenny Lego came home from school and his Grandfather found Lenny sitting in a chair with a puzzled look on his face.
Grand Pa Lego wondering what was wrong with his Grandson came over and sat beside Lenny and asked "Why the perplexed look Lenny?"
In which Lenny replied back with uncertainty, well in school today our science teacher told us that we evolved from a common block ancestor.
Lenny continued with, and that the pictures he showed of extinct LEGO animals proved it. My teacher told us that the similarities of the LEGO animals all but proved we’re all related. He said that because we have the same type of interconnecting blocks which when snapped together form similar feet, bodies and arms prove we are all descendants of an original Lego organism.
Lenny then sat back and after a few seconds looked at his Grand Pa and continued with, and it all seems to make sense to me. Besides the pictures my teacher had models of them all lined up in a row. Each LEGO animal had the same type of feet. Each LEGO animal had the same square blocky head, each LEGO block has the same plug and socket for joining the blocks together... just like us Grand Pa.
Grand Pa Lego then took a deep breath to explain to Lenny the truth behind the evolution of LEGO people when Lenny blurted out with "Grand Pa, where did we come from? Why do we have similar parts? Does this prove we evolved from a common LEGO block?"
In which Grand Pa Lego replied back with, Lenny, we know the history of the first LEGO man. He was created fully formed and complete although Lenny, some will present the argument or a similar argument to us like your science teacher did. The reason why we have such similar body parts is because our Creator used the same style of building blocks. What works for us works for the LEGO cow and the LEGO fish. No matter what is build from the LEGO blocks, they will always be similar. The so-called evolution story is just an attempt to strip our creator of the glory of his work and the magnificent ability to put together his building blocks to serve a useful purpose. Remember LEGO legs should be similar Lenny, whether the building blocks are used for a man, ape, cow, dinosaur, bird, or alligator. The only difference would be the need for a slightly different arrangement of the building blocks to better suite the LEGO animal for their particular environment or lifestyle
Lenny then smiled as the realization of the truth settled into his block shaped brain. A common creator would use common building blocks when He created life.

The history of the church is littered with judgmental people like you who claim believers who are scientists are "destroying the Word of God" by teaching in contradiction to the Bible that the world is round, and that the sun is the center of the solar system, and that the sky is not a solid dome, and that the "clear teaching" of Scripture is that the sun goes around the earth (obviously!) and not the other way around... And in every case history has shown that it was the judgmental believers who were mistaken in their interpretation.

Don't mistake your interpretation for the Word of God. They are not the same thing and you would do well to remember it.

You would also do well to remember the words of Galileo who was unfairly condemned simply for telling the truth about what he observed:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use"

These transitional fossils exist. They are not a figment of the imagination. The more research the more holes that have been filled. Your "solution" is to deny reality, when instead you should be asking yourself whether *your interpretation of God's Word---not God's Word itself---is in error, lest you join the long history of similar judgmental Christians who are now recognized as the ones who were in error---NOT God's Word---but their *interpretation* of God's Word which they mistook for the actual Word or God.

 

[CrowCross]

The history of the church is littered with judgmental people like you who claim believers who are scientists are "destroying the Word of God" by teaching in contradiction to the Bible that the world is round, and that the sun is the center of the solar system, and that the sky is not a solid dome, and that the "clear teaching" of Scripture is that the sun goes around the earth (obviously!) and not the other way around... And in every case history has shown that it was the judgmental believers who were mistaken in their interpretation.

Don't mistake your interpretation for the Word of God. They are not the same thing and you would do well to remember it.

You would also do well to remember the words of Galileo who was unfairly condemned simply for telling the truth about what he observed:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use"

These transitional fossils exist. They are not a figment of the imagination. The more research the more holes that have been filled. Your "solution" is to deny reality, when instead you should be asking yourself whether *your interpretation of God's Word---not God's Word itself---is in error, lest you join the long history of similar judgmental Christians who are now recognized as the ones who were in error---NOT God's Word---but their *interpretation* of God's Word which they mistook for the actual Word or God.

No, the "transitional" fossils don't exist.

I do find it kinda funny when you say I deny reality...when you deny the Bible.

 

[TB2]

No, the "transitional" fossils don't exist.

I do find it kinda funny when you say I deny reality...when you deny the Bible.

Your denial of facts is noted

 

[CrowCross]

Your denial of facts is noted

Your denial of Genesis is noted.

 

[TB2]

Your denial of Genesis is noted.

Only your interpretation

 

[CrowCross]

Only your interpretation

Yup, Adam formed from the dust....Eve formed from Adams rib....like the bible say. You do see why I have a hard time interpreting that as evolutionism.

 

[TB2]

Yup, Adam formed from the dust....Eve formed from Adams rib....like the bible say. You do see why I have a hard time interpreting that as evolutionism.

I am more than willing to dialogue with you. But a respectful exchange is expected. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

 

[CrowCross]

Interesting....Pectoral fin...evolved int a footlike struture in the front legs....then the next step in this "transitional"...it evolved into a rear leg.

The artworks was nice....but there really isn't a whole lot of simularity presented. I mean, it's a pretty big leap between the pectoral fin and the so-called transitional footlike structure. Where did all those bones come from in the "footlike" structure missing in the pectoral fin...not to mention the 7 "fingers"....or are they toes n the hind limb that the front limb evolved into?

....and you present this as a missing link?

 

[CrowCross]

Below are 5 so-called transitionals as presented by the evos.

1. Ophiacodon, Early Permian, Texas: "skull had changed from the small low shape...this allowed for longer jaw muscles to develop."

2. Phthinosuchus Base of Late Permian, USSR: " strikingly similar...but with larger synapsid opneings behind the eyes.. paelontologists believe this to be intermediate in structure between pelycosaurs and Therapsids.

3. Thrinaxodon, Early Triassic, South Africa, Antartica: "Another mammalian trend seen in the lower jaw... teeth were set into a signle bone,, the dentary, which had become larger at the expense of the smaller bones at back of jaw."

4. Cynogathus: Early Triassic, South Africa, Argentina: practically the whole lower jaw on each side was made up of a single bone, the dentary...coronoid process at back of dentary articluiated with the skull and meant the jaws could open wide.

5. Morganucodon: Late Triassic to Early Jurassic, Africa, Europe, Eastern Asia:

Lets trace out their travel plans....

In the first Picture, Ophiacodon packs his bags and heads north from Texas to the USSR and then becomes Phthinosuchus. I wonder how much trouble this guy had crossing the Appalachian mountains on his journey to evolve?

View attachment 378


Then a few yers later Phthinosuchus decides to head south, passing through Pennsylvania and New Jersey...and ends up in South Africa and Antartica where it becomes Thrinaxodon.

View attachment 379

 

[CrowCross]

Thrinaxodon then hangs out there for a while, evolves into Cynogathus then decides to head north again and takes a trip to East Asia.


View attachment 380

I suppose some where on this journey Cynogathus decided to evolve into Morganucodon during the early Jurassic.





WOW....What a trip





All that time, all that distance, all that evolution....and the transitionals are spread out all over the globe... with no evolving fossils found on the way? why?


Could it be the scientist that have a faith in evolutionism...collected these fossil fragments from all over the world...picked out the ones that made sense to their theory...and lined them up?

 

[TB2]

Misrepresenting the facts. Red herring. Failing to address the OP

 

[TB2]

In the first Picture, Ophiacodon packs his bags and heads north from Texas to the USSR and then becomes Phthinosuchus. I wonder how much trouble this guy had crossing the Appalachian mountains on his journey to evolve?

Your first error is to think there is only one fossil specimen of Ophiacodon (from Texas) when there are hundreds distributed across North America & Europe. Your second error is that Ophiacodon didn't "become" Phthinosuchus. Individuals don't "evolve into" something else. Populations split and speciate.

Then a few yers later Phthinosuchus decides to head south, passing through Pennsylvania and New Jersey...and ends up in South Africa and Antartica where it becomes Thrinaxodon.

Individuals don't "become/evolve into" something else. Populations speciate. Phthinosuchus was not a mainline but a side branch, so didn't need to "travel" anywhere to "become" something else.

Thrinaxodon then hangs out there for a while, evolves into Cynogathus then decides to head north again and takes a trip to East Asia.

Individuals don't "evolve into" something else. Populations split and speciate.

You are attacking a strawman--a discredited, obsolete view of evolution from the 1800s of individuals "evolving into" something else ("Anagenesis"). That's not how evolution works. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Populations split and speciate ("Cladogenesis").

We are not dealing with single fossil specimens, but thousands of fossil specimens. The therapsid transition is one of the most well documented transitions. We can trace their origins to equatorial regions, and can follow their evolution and geographic spread north and south from there.

Thousands and thousands of fossil specimens related to the therapsid transition. You left out about a hundred intermediates. Can't even fit them on one screen (that's how much evidence there is). On the right side I highlighted Ophiacodon, Phthinosuchus, and Thrinaxodon (the others don't even fit on the chart; that's how many intermediates we have).

There is tons more evidence for this therapsid transition than there is for the fish-tetrapod transition example I gave in the OP

 

[TB2]

But the fish-tetrapod transition in the OP is still an instructive example of denial. The more digging the more gaps have been filled in the fish-tetrapod transition, while YECs continue to recite the same mantra: "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

YEC Duane Gish's 1970s/1980s book "Evolution: the Fossils Say No!" criticized the "lack of transitional/intermediate forms" between fish and tetrapods and featured the picture below (Figure 1):

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

The Gish picture above is still used by YECs today (Figure 1 caption) to say "look, fully formed fins & feet with no intermediate transitional forms in between!"

Of course, Ichthyostega (discovered in 1932) was already old news, and before the days of the Internet information was harder to find, so perhaps Gish didn't know about Acanthostega (discovered 1952) which had characters intermediate between fish and Ichthyostega. Of course, once that discovery became more well known that still wasn't a good enough transitional form, so the YECs could still shout:

'THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then, of course, more discoveries were made, but for whatever reason these weren't good enough, or didn't count, or still left large "gaps," so YECs felt they could still confidently shout:

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then more discoveries were made...

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And still more discoveries were made (like the discovery of Tiktaalik in 2006)....

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

*So evolution keeps changing, while young earth creationism stays the same ("THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"), and apparently no amount of "transitional forms" will ever be enough to get YECs to acknowledge, "Hey, you know, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related." OR EVEN JUST, "I still disagree, but I can see why everyone else concludes that they're related

 

[TB2]

The significance of Tiktaalik is not only that it is a true intermediate between fish and tetrapods with a mix of fish and tetrapod traits, but that paleontologists used (and tested) evolutionary predictions to find it.

----‐------------------------------------
The discovery of Tiktaalik is an interesting example-- a missing link with fish and tetrapod traits that have earned it the name "fishapod." What's interesting is how it was discovered. Based on fossil fish lower in the fossil record (380 million years old), and tetrapods higher in the record (365 million years old), scientists predicted that this intermediate should exist and in sediments dated in between. The scientists went looking for this transition and picked research locations based on evolutionary predictions, and lo and behold, found Tiktaalik just as predicted. That is the sign of a good scientific theory: one that makes testable predictions that are then confirmed by the evidence.

 

[CrowCross]

Misrepresenting the facts. Red herring. Failing to address the OP

No, just showing folks one of the methods evos use to "produce"...make....so-called transitionals.
How they have to scour the planet creating dots to connect.

 

[CrowCross]

From this...
View attachment 385


to this....

View attachment 386

Looks like they went fishing again.

 

[CrowCross]

These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated (using evolutionary assumptions) at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik (again, by evolutionary thinking). If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. (ref)

View attachment 387

This shows this chart to be ....wrong.

View attachment 388

Don't believe the lie.