Why do you use this argument? "Lack of transitional fossils" proves evolution wrong?

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the probability of fossilization. The probability of fossilization is investigated by taphonomists and geologists, who have concluded that it usually is very low. We are actually quite fortunate to have found fossil representatives of ANY of the major evolutionary transitions.

So considering the low probability of fossilization, the number of transitional forms that have been found is remarkable. To say that these fossils fail to establish evolution because there "should be more" would be akin to seeing the angel Gabriel descend from the sky and saying, "Well, that doesn't prove anything! I mean, where's Uriel?"

Update:

I'm an atheist, btw.

Update 2:

Too true.

What do you call the fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx?

Update 3:

Im baaaack~ Yea, so? This is quite obviously directed at Creationists.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Oh, now, let's not jump to conclusions...

    Our poor deluded creationist friends don't actually make any arguments -- and I don't think it's nice of you to claim that they do.

    They just repeat what some pastor told them, or what they copied & pasted from "answers in genesis." They don't really try to argue or debate.

    I'd gently suggest that you not assume our poor deluded creationist friends know how to have an intelligent debate that actually involves arguments. That's mean, and not at all accurate. Be a little nicer to them, ok? They have simple minds, and you're just confusing them with all those facts.

    <grin>

    Peace.

  • diehm
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    perhaps by way of fact I come from a technological awareness history, i could in no way comprehend using the notice "purely" in "this is basically a concept". this is rather much as though human beings do not comprehend what concept relatively potential. in the event that they have been to assert "this is basically a hypothesis", pertaining to an concept unsupported via any evidence, they could have some credence, yet not with "concept", which shows evidence and acceptance. Edit: @God is fact: <<Gravity is a regulation>> A "regulation" is a "punchline" or shortcut of a concept. on a similar time as a concept could have many pages of derivation and outline, now and returned this is decreased right down to an undemanding equation or a number of. those are rules. as an occasion, Newton's concept of time-honored Gravitation is amazingly huge, area of a three quantity artwork, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that this is decreased to an undemanding regulation: rigidity F = GMm/r² the place G is the Gravitational consistent, M & m are the plenty, and r is their separation. it is all a medical regulation is.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Many have been taught to use infinite regression to deny "transitional fossils" (which is kind of a buzz word really - ALL forms are transitional). If you show them a link between humans and an earlier species they say "That's just another kind of ape. Show me one between them" ad infinitum.

    @ I'm baaaack

    There are plenty of threads started by creationists that try to disprove evolution by citing the supposed lack of transitional fossils. If religious people can use it to discuss their beliefs, we can.

  • 1 decade ago

    Sick and tired of stupid statements from dogmatic evolutionists and creationists alike. Here instead is a little bit of serious research from actual scientists:

    Simpson writes in The Meaning of Evolution: “Early Cambrian rocks, laid down about 500,000,000 years ago, are crowded with fossils. One place or another on earth there are also rich fossil deposits of almost all ages since the early Cambrian. But in rocks earlier than the Cambrian, representing the great span of 1,500,000,000 years, fossils are generally rare and usually dubious and disputed.” This abrupt bursting into the fossil record of fossils of all the major groups or phyla, except vertebrates, Simpson called “this major mystery of the history of life. Harvard’s professor Romer quoted Darwin’s comment on this mystery, “I can give no satisfactory answer”—and Romer added, “Nor can we today.” Significantly, he then observed: “The general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.” However, now that the fossil record is superabundant since Cambrian times, does it show the beginnings of vertebrate or backboned life? No. Zoology professor Goldschmidt said, in The Material Basis of Evolution: “The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories.” Among fossil experts today this is a generally accepted fact. Interestingly, evolutionists are aware that the fossil record is more compatible with creation than with evolution, even as they vehemently reject creation. Years ago several acknowledged this: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (L. T. More) “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”—Sir Arthur Keith. Today some still see creation as fitting the facts. J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and evolutionist, stated: “I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” (Contemporary Botanical Thought, 1961, p. 97) In the Physics Bulletin, May 1980, Professor Lipson reluctantly said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.” The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Creation fits its facts. When Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 says life would bring forth “according to its kind,” it fits the scientific facts. RETREAT ON MAN’S HISTORY---Recent discoveries of human fossils have caused a retreat, also, regarding man’s supposed evolutionary history. These discoveries have made a shambles of the evolutionary “tree,” the hypothetical lineup of apelike creatures assertedly leading to man. Because of these recent discoveries, the Boston Globe declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. . . . It also means we have had our ancestors mixed up.” What has caused this retreat? The discovery of modern-type human fossils believed to be older than the supposed “apemen” from which they were alleged to have come. One of these “apelike” creatures, labeled Australopithecus by scientists, was once even hailed by some as being the missing link between humans and apes. But according to scientific sources the new evidence has shown this to be impossible. The New York Times reported: “The new fossils provided conclusive evidence that Australopithecus, an extinct species once thought to be transitional between ape and man, was, instead, a contemporary of early man that became an evolutionary dead end.”

    The truth is that humans, too, were created ‘according to their kind.’ That is why no “links” have ever been found between man and beast. It is also why none ever will be found. The huge gap will always remain, put there by the Creator to keep man and beast distinct.

    Source(s): go to watchtower.org if you want more
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    We have the fossils. We have the proof. The further in the earth you go, the fossils become simpler as you go into earlier sediments.

    Source(s): Are creationists so blind as to deny it?
  • Transitional fossils have already been found and documented by the scientific community.

    Source(s): Atheist
  • 1 decade ago

    "very low"? It's NON EXISTING!!! My faith in scientists that draw conclusions based on fragments of fossils is very low. I have examined the history of some of these "fossils". For example, the "Nebraska Man" was used in the Scopes trial as "evidence" for evolution. My question to you is this, how do you prove evolution from a pig's tooth? I guess, when you BLINDLY accept what scientists spew from their mouths or scribble in their text books, you may have a "slightly" different world view than creationists.

    GOD bless

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is just something they are taught to parrot by their preachers. Chances are if you ask them to elaborate on what kind of transitional fossils they are looking for exactly they will just say "Mmm....I dunno" Fossils showing macro and micro evolution have already been found and keep being found.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why do you try and use it as your basis on evolution in which there is no base (transitional fossils ) to back up your claims !!!

    Monkeys gather rocks to throw at humans...Gee evolution at its best...

    when will science go beyond the monkey's ?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This is the religion and spirituality section, science is across the hall.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.