Creationists, can you define "transitional fossil"?
I noticed that the only way a Creationist can claim that there is "a lack of transitional fossils", is to completely warp the definition of the word.
So let's test this theory, shall we?
"A transitional fossil is _________________________.
Follows Jesus~ No, I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong.
Queen Kira~ Also terribly wrong.
- RusheventsLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
A transitional fossil is one that shows a clear, gradual change in a species over time.
The theory of Evolution believes that stronger traits will gradually displace weaker ones.
Let's use the horse for example: We have a pretty significant fossil catalog of horse relatives here in the US. (See link below). The Parahippus is in the middle of the pack. It still has toes and is pretty small but has a long face and similar hips as a modern horse.
Where are the fossils of the Parahippus as it gradually lost its toes in favor of the hoof? Where are the skeletons of gradually taller and taller Parahippus? If that's too far back in the record ask the same thing about the Merychippus or the Pliohippus?
The Record seems to show that a complete species is suddenly born, lives a while then dies out rather than a gradual evolutionary change.
The delineation between the species in the horse genus is too well defined between steps and there are no fossils showing any gradual changes.
There is no single missing link, rather there are millions of them.
- 4 years ago
No, I couldn't, sorry. I could look it up on wikipedia, or read a Christian article on it right now, then answer this question, but to tell you the truth, I have no idea what a transitional species is, or why it even matters. I am not a dumbass, however. I am going to read about it and then I will hopefully gain an understanding of it. Evolutionists can believe whatever they want. It is perfectly fine with me. I will tell them that the Bible is true, and some will laugh at me, but ultimately it doesn't matter. I will feel bad that they don't believe, and they may think that I'm misguided and ignorant to their claims. I'll try not to be-- that's why I even bothered to look at this. I just don't get why you would even bother answering (or asking) just so you could say how stupid the creationists are. There's no point, it just makes them angry (are they really going to say "Wait...i AM a dumbass..."). Same thing with saying "evolutionists are stupid", it doesn't mean anything. "Creationists are wrong"-- fine. "Evolutionists are wrong"-- fine. I don't think creationism or evolution are going to fall at the hands of a single point, like "transitional species"...there is a creationist more educated than me (and most of the people who responded) who can probably refute this point; and an educated evolutionist who can refute his. I'll let the people who actually know how to debate this do so. I've heard compelling evidences from both sides, but I don't intend make an example of my ignorance and start throwing out rash generalizations about evolutionists just to say something.
- ThoughtLv 61 decade ago
I usually don't do this (post just to agree with someone else), but "Jane is Still Plain" has it right on the head. All fossils are transitional... though I'd also claim that no fossil is transitional (as transition implies a specific endpoint). The entire discussion is a red herring that evolustionists would do well to avoid.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Plato-GirlLv 41 decade ago
This is a great illustration of the general Evolutionist inability to separate data from theory. Thanks.
A transitional fossil can't exist UNTIL someone decides that the theory of common descent from a putative first organism is true. Then whatever looks like it could be fitted between two other animals is called 'transitional'. Of course this is ludicrous. EVERYTHING is then transitional, one big stupid continuum.
If all species are transitional, then there are NO species.
From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again (1971)
by Etienne Gilson
A reviewer said the following after reading this :
"A more accurate title for Darwin’s book, according to Gilson, would be the Origin of Varieties. Darwin’s use of the word “species,” however, is contradictory. “To say that species are fixed,” Gilson writes, “is tautology; to say that they change is to say that they do not exist, Why does Darwin obstinately say that they transform themselves, rather than saying simply that they do not exist?” (pp. 140-1)"
This kind of logic-***-diction confusion is just utterly frustrating to me.
- ExileLv 51 decade ago
It's one of those ying/yang things. There are no transitional fossils because every fossil is a transitional fossil.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Considering no one has ever found the skeleton of a grizzly bear in N. America, and those things are alive today, I don't know why creationists expect science to find every single skeleton that ever existed and may be buried under millions of tonnes of rock or under some lake or sea bed.
- 1 decade ago
A creationist would define it as a fossil depicting the body of a duck, but the skull of a crocodile.
- FUNdieLv 71 decade ago
A transitional fossil is the remains of a creature with half- or partially-developed organs, limbs, or other body parts between one "kind" and another.
EDIT: Sin jari - no, it's not "terribly wrong". You evolutionists do believe that birds came from dinosaurs, don't you? How do you explain the numerous differences between reptiles and birds that cannot be explained by gradualism? Did you know that birds have 2 sets of lungs, and reptiles only have 2? Where are the transitionals between those two stages? How about the transitionals from scales to feathers? How do you explain the transition from sternum to furcula (to which flight muscles attach)? Still no transitionals there, either! To believe that the sternum just inched closer and closer to becoming a furcula with each passing generation is Lamarckism, which is totally fallacious. Archaeopteryx also has hollow leg and wing bones, just like any bird. It also has modern bird feathers, not halfway between scale and feather. No intermediate feathers have ever been found. Archaeopteryx also well-developed wings that show it could fly well. Its feathers are also asymmetrical, showing that they are already fully developed for flight. Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional between reptile and bird, because there are no transitionals bridging theh huge gap between reptile and bird.
- 1 decade ago
Okay, I'm an atheist..but I'll take a guess....
ALL fossils are transitional because every species is always in transition.