So, about these "nonexistent" transitional fossils?
Invertebrates to Fish
Pikaia -- extremely primitive notocord
Conodont-- ray fins and a notocord
Haikouichthys -- A notochord with separate vertebral elements
Arandaspis -- Well armoured jawless fish
Birkenia -- primitive, jawless fish or fishlike vertebrate
Guiyu -- The oldest known bony fish
Jawless fish to shark
Cladoselache -- intermediate between jawless fishes to sharks
Tristychius -- another sharklike fish.
Ctenacanthus -- first primitive shark.
Paleospinax -- sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.
Spathobatis -- First ray-like fish.
Protospinax -- Ancestral to both sharks and skates.
Jawless fish to bony fish
Acanthodians -- similar to early bony fishes, possibly a transitional form.
Palaeoniscoids -- primitive bony fishes.
Canobius, Aeduella -- more advanced jaws.
Parasemionotus -- combination of modern cheeks with more primitive features, like lungs
Oreochima -- first teleost fish
Leptolepids -- ancestor of modern teleost fish. Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Amphistium and Heteronectes -- transition to the eye location of flatfishes.
Fish to amphibian
Paleoniscoids -- both ancestral to modern fish and land vertebrates.
Osteolepis -- modified limb bones, amphibian like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion -- fin bones similarly structured to amphibian feet, but no toes yet, and still fishlike bodily proportions.
Panderichthys, Elpistostege -- tetrapod-like bodily proportions.
Obruchevichthys -- fragmented skeleton with intermediate characteristics, possible first tetrapod.
Tiktaalik -- a fish with developing legs. Also appearance of ribs and neck.
Acanthostega -- famous intermediate fossil. most primitive fossil that is known to be a tetrapod
Ichthyostega -- like Acanthostega, another fishlike amphibian
Hynerpeton -- A little more advanced then Acanthostega and Ichtyostega
Labyrinthodonts -- still many fishlike features, but tailfins have disappeared
Lungfish--A fish-that has lungs.
Primitive to modern amphibians
Amphibian to reptile
Early reptile to turtle
Odontochelys Semitestacea -- partial formation of a turtle shell, showing how the hard underbelly formed first.
Early reptile to diapsid (dinosaurs and modern reptiles except for turtles)
Reptile to mammal
Morganucodon -- a transition between "mammal-like reptiles" and "true mammals".
Dinosaur to bird
Allosaurus --A large therapod with a wishbone
Compsognathus --A small coeleosaur with a wishbone
Microraptor -- a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
Archaeopteryx -- the famous bird-with-teeth.
AND THIS IS A SMALL LIST!
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
Yes, but all of those animals were complete and therefore not transitional. None of them had four and one-half legs or the head of an eagle grafted onto the body of a fish, which is what you'd expect if evolution were true.
In you next list be sure to include two relatively recent finds: Tiktaalik roseae, an animal halfway between fish and amphibian, and Anchiornis huxleyi, a feathered dinosaur that looked superficially almost exactly like a bird.
- Anonymous9 years ago
The renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
And: "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."
Perhaps you should email him this list.
- SaraLv 79 years ago
I looked at your "talkorigins" link and noticed they devote the first half of the page to apologizing for the threadbare nature of the transitional fossil record.
"Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage."
"Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals."
And so on.
Creationists would not argue that God made lots of animals, and some of them are similar to each other.
Evolutionists would prefer to believe that a racoon-like animal changed into a horse.
On the surface of that, which seems more far-fetched?
- louttitLv 44 years ago
in accordance to the evolution concept there are actually not any in between varieties that are almost this species or that species, each and each form is of its very own species, yet proceed to be interior the chain of activities.. yet this clarification is evolution vendors scape goat, they know it is the only end that must be achieveable, there can under no circumstances be an 0.5 reptile 0.5 dogs, subsequently they restoration us to settle for and have self belief that each thing is a transition from one faze to the subsequent.. in certainty removing the certainty of what we see in creation, you notice if creation is genuine then the fossil checklist info it wisely, if evolution is genuine then our minds could desire to be fixed to have self belief and settle for that there are actually not any in betweens yet completely formed betweens that are supposedly the lacking hyperlinks..
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- RyanLv 49 years ago
Yeh theists try to poke holes in our theories when they don't understand what transition and intermediate phases are, they grab onto the smallest piece of information they think can disprove evolution and fail every time. So far evolution hasn't had one discrepancy placed on it from any other scientist, it's amazing though how these crazy creationists don't believe in it though.
- Edward the LessLv 79 years ago
I think you asked this yesterday. All it really proves is that you know how to cut and paste. Nice wall.
- ?Lv 69 years ago
They think that just because we're missing perhaps ONE step, then the rest is invalid, which is complete idiocy.
- Anonymous9 years ago
They don't care what you present, it conflicts with their fairy tale.