If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

a reply to: Snarl
/end sarcasm?

None of it makes sense to me. Apparently an asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs, it just turned them into birds.

originally posted by: Bone75
None of it makes sense to me. Apparently an asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs, it just turned them into birds.

Yeah. LOL Go figure.

I threw some steaks on the grill last night, and when I went to flip 'em over a new species of butterfly flew out from under the hood. My wife and I went hungry. -Sob!!

a reply to: Bone75

Technically speaking, only certain dinosaurs ended up becoming birds.Specifically, small theropods similar to Velociraptors. Some dinosaurs were killed right off the bat by the KT impact event and many more hung on struggling for quite a while by human standards and the blink of an eye in the context of geologic time scales.

www.nhm.org...

So, the point of this thread is to point out that the Theory of Evolution is a theory or, am I just confused? I don't claim to be an evolution expert or very smart even (i.e my punctuation) but, isn't it scientifically proven that humans are constantly evolving so, technically all our bones are transitional fossils?

Either way the thread made me laugh

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Well you seem to be looking for some actual knowledge. The main dilemma with the OP's argument is that fossils form under very specific conditions. It's impossible to have a fossil of every single species that ever lived because the conditions for fossilization to occur is so rare.

I don't know the exact number, but i'm guessing that less than 0.00001% of creatures end up as fossils.
And thats why we don't have fossils for EVERY SINGLE SPECIES EVER.

But what we do have is very good evidence for scales turning into feather, fins into limbs etc.

We deduce this by looking at fossils and comparing their age, location, and many other factors to determine how they relate to other species and how those species developed. So yea.. there's proof for evolution, you just need some more David Attenborough in your life

You don't have any proof...It's all speculation and wishful thinking...

originally posted by: aGh0st
technically all our bones are transitional fossils?

You've misunderstood/missed the point.

If for example reptiles really evolved into birds, there should be millions of transitional forms between reptile and bird. Where are the fossils of all those transitional forms?

The archaeopteryx is just one of those transitional form between reptile and bird. There should be millions of others. Where are they?

originally posted by: secretboss

originally posted by: aGh0st
technically all our bones are transitional fossils?

You've misunderstood/missed the point.

If for example reptiles really evolved into birds, there should be millions of transitional forms between reptile and bird. Where are the fossils of all those transitional forms?

The archaeopteryx is just one of those transitional form between reptile and bird. There should be millions of others. Where are they?

No, it is you who have missed the point. Once again, you're asking the same question that has been answered at least a dozen times in this thread.

But then, you don't care about the answer, do you? Crawl back under your bridge...

originally posted by: secretboss

originally posted by: aGh0st
technically all our bones are transitional fossils?

You've misunderstood/missed the point.

If for example reptiles really evolved into birds, there should be millions of transitional forms between reptile and bird. Where are the fossils of all those transitional forms?

The archaeopteryx is just one of those transitional form between reptile and bird. There should be millions of others. Where are they?

If your going to try to intelligently hold a conversation it might be a good idea to learn about the topic first. We indeed have many transitional fossils from dinosaurs to birds. Notice I didn't say reptiles this just once again shows you haven't a clue about what you discuss. Here is a good place for you to start your education. It's a group called maniraptora. Many of these groups have features from both dinosaurs and modern birds like for examole there breast bone.you know the one every one pulls out the turkey on thanks giving.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The OPs question was:

If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

This is fundamentally flawed. The OP should have asked:

If God did it why are there so many transitional fossils?

a reply to: aGh0st

Well to some it's a theory, and to others it's the best working theory for the creation and evolution of life forms...
The more you look into it the more sense it makes, nature always follows the path of least resistance except in very rare occasions where mutations caused by environment or others factors lead to an advantage, but this can also be viewed as 'the path of least resistance'.

It all just makes fantastic sense and there's a lot of solid evidence to back it up, to shut your eyes to this revelation is to alter your reality by choice.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

Evolution is a Theory which is why it is called the Theory (idea) of Evolution not the Law of Evolution.
It is the conceptualization supported by CONSENCUS of opinion and INTERPRETATION of Data.

It's really disappointing to me when people build their argument around their own ignorance. In this case, you incorrectly believe that there is some sort of hierarchy in nomenclature between a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law where the Law supercedes a Theory. This simply isn't the case. In Science, a theory. In science, a Scientific Theory is not as you attempt to claim, just an idea. Nor is it a Scientific Theory as the byproduct of consensus.

For the sake of clarity, a Scientific Theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based on proven hypotheses and independently verified multiple times by other practitioners of your discipline who are not party to your initial research. A Scientific Theory explains facts and even in some instances, Scientific Laws.

A Scientific Law is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal and in some Instances, can be expressed through a mathematical equations. They explain what will occur in a given set of circumstances.

In more simplified terms, a Scientifict Theory explains how a phenomenon occurs. A Scientidic Law explains why it occurs. Law doesn't trump theory. They each have a different function.

That is a clear problem, Concencus lead's to peer review and BELIEF that a Theory is FACTUAL AND PROVEN when in fact it's proof is a kind of pyramid scheme based on INTERPRETATION and I might add that while I personally DO believe in God so am on the other side from many other's whom are commenting on this thread I am not opposed to the Theory itself or even it's interpretation.

Statements like this can only stem from the minds of people who have never been party to a defense of their thesis or
Dissertation let alone actually submitted a paper to a peer reviewed journal. See, your peers aren't just waving you on because... "Consensus". They are actively trying to find the flaws and errors in your work.

Again, a Scientific Theory is based upon the sum of PROVEN hypotheses. It's not a matter of consensus or random interpretations that fall In line with a preconceived notion or consensus.

But this thread's comment's portray perfectly the clash of Belief's between two different point's of view.

Each side calling the other crazy or foolish, even stooping to childish troll like post's with only a few cool head's such as Disreali making any sense at all.

In all fairness, after participating in the same thread multiple times in the last several years as if it's a DVR left on a loop, it gets a little frustrating to see people, and in some cases the same people, over and over again refusing to get a library card or utilize the wealth of tools the Internet has to offer as they ask the same questions and do so from s point of willful ignorance time and time again, even the most patient amongst us get rather frustrated. Seriously, there's a search function on ATS that apparently only works for me and then there's Google. So when questions that we all know were dealt with in high school biology are bandied about ad nauseum, it gets difficult to discern who is asking because they actually want to learn from the willfully ignorant and the finest bridge dwelling trolls the internet has to offer.

Now let me ask the believers in Evolution (bare in mind I do not disbelieve in it myself though I am a Christian), how do you PROVE the lucy fossil is indeed related to the human race as an ancestor species and HOW do you disprove find's like these I shall place below this caveat other than to ridicule them (which is exactly the reception Darwins own idea initially recieved at the Royal Academy).
www.ancient-wisdom.com...
www.creationhistory.com...
bibliotecapleyades.lege.net...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.icr.org...
www.bible.ca...
biblicalgeology.net...

Every one of the above has been addressed multiple times across a wide array of threads. It would take in inordinate amount of time to address each and every one of them and it would be redundant to do so. Please feel free to start a thread of its own dealing with the above. It would derail this one so thoroughly that it would ever get back on track.

Now think on this, Men that stood on the moon are probably far more intelligent than the lecturer, science teacher or school teacher that taught you to disbelieve in God and to believe in Theory (Idea), Men such as James Irwin whom truly believed in Noah's Ark and spent his last years trying to find it.

Strawman much? I'm sorry to keep using the word ignorant but come on. You're doing nothing with this statement other than setting up a holier than thou pitch by claiming that every professor I studied under or worked with is nowhere near as intelligent as men like James Irwin who believed that Hebrew scripture was literal so how smart is it to listen to men who taught disbelief, which for the record wasn't part of the curriculum anywhere I have studied. Do you even see the irony of you calling out people earlier in your post for childish name calling, divisiveness and trollish behavior when this is exactly what you are doing here? Nobody in science teaches disbelief in God or gods. We are far
More concerned with The scientific method than who someone prays to at night or what entity you ask your blessing from When saying grace. If Irwin wanted to chase after Noah's ark, that's his business but that doesn't make him smarter than I nor does my rejection of what I would consider fantasy make me smarter. The fact that I can recognize that the story of Noah isn't original to the Hebrews and that it is a direct derivative of the Epic of Gilgamesh and magically appeared in Hebrew scripture right after Cyrus freed them from their bondage in Babylon might
Mean I'm more open minded than he is but neither position is a correlation to intelligence.

Are they crazy or is it more appropriate to say closing your mind to there belief since you DON'T understand it and believing an IDEA is just as crazy.

Again, your building off of little more than assumptions and projection here. How do you know people don't understand the religious point of view? Even worse, you imply that belief in Modern Evolutionary Synthesis precludes one from beings a person of faith. In my personal experience, that simply isn't true. The only flavor of Christianity that you won't find in the Biology department is going to be proponents of YEC. You do yourself a great disservice by projecting your own preconceived notions(who really has the closed mind?) upon people who work in the Bioloical and Earth sciences.

a reply to: GreenGunther

I just need to point out that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has nothing to do with the creation of or origin of life on Earth. That is the purview of Abiogenesis and Panspermia which are only hypotheses.

a reply to: secretboss

Really? We ARE sitting on mountains of them. They are embedded in the mountains. And in the bedrock, and ocean bottoms, and beneath glacial formations.
Derp.

a reply to: secretboss

Until then evolution can be dismissed as an unproven hypothesis.

You new here, then?

Wrong site for that sort of nonsense. We deny ignorance around here.

a reply to: peter vlar

Now what really get's me is that you are so concieted and self righteous in your opinion's that you would set out to try to demolish a perfectly valid point of view with what I have to point out to you is CATEGORICALLY and SIMPLY your own point of view, further more you are neither expert nor are you an unquestionable authority so your opinion hold's only as much weight as my own - at best.

And I would point out that it is my OPINION that your love of argument, even to the point of creating one when there is no valid point of opposition as well as your self seemingly appointed goal of attacking valid post's by others on such thread's is simply in order to try to discredit the subject matter of the given thread and that is simply wrong but hey freedom of speech so keep it up and I must point out that are two opinion's on this matter are definitely opposed and you are in my opinion absolutely wrong as to the heirarchy of principle's, A law must predede a theory (though a theory may cast a law into doubt if there is sufficiant data to formulate one in such circumstance) and the so called law's of physic's (Which we now know through quantum theory are probably not set in stone so to speak) are actually the basis for most theory's which use them as node's in there calculation's and speculation's.

Furthermore I would make a pun about being honoured as such a lengthy defencive repost but what would be the point, it would only be honourable if it was correct and not opinionated dribble.

God Day to you sir (or night depending on your locality).
I did have a good laugh though.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually, labtech, peter vlar is right.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

which koala was the first koala to eat poison leaves
and
which koala was the first to feed its poop to its children?

how did they figure that out?

I believe in evolution but that aspect of the koala is baffling.

You wouldn't know a "transitional fossil" if it slapped you in the face....

there is no "complete" organism...they are constantly evolving...constantly in a state of transition....

EVERY FOSSIL IN OUR RECORDS CAN BE LABELED A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.....

A2D

a reply to: nobunaga

excuse me? "the problem with religious people"?

I'm "religious"...but i absolutely believe in evolution...and I absolutely do NOT believe the earth is 6000 years old...that's just rubbish....you may want to wipe off that broad brush you're using and start to use your brain instead...

A2D