It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Examples of transitional fossils See also: Evolution of the horse, Evolution of cetaceans, and Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles The reconstruction of the evolution of the horse and its relatives assembled by Othniel Charles Marsh from surviving fossils form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types, is often cited as a family tree. However, modern cladistics gives a different, multi-stemmed shrublike picture, with multiple innovations and many dead ends. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik and various hominids considered to be proto-humans.
It is commonly claimed by critics of evolution that there are no transitional fossils. Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature, or according to Donald Prothero, may be a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory. Prothero has called that claim the "favourite lie" of creationists and further said that it was "manifestly untrue". A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight. Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of remains, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Creationists often argue against this, claiming it is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. Progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, however, and in modern thinking, evolutionary lines of development are understood as being bush-like in appearance, not as the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion.
Originally posted by Techsnow
Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean that you believe that animals and us don't have souls. Why just because you believe the universe grows and is changing must I also believe that I don't have a soul?
Originally posted by Gdc934
Thanks I will look into that, seems there is a LOT of information there.
One thing that has always bothered me about this whole evolution thing, is why religions around the world think God can't exist if evolution is true. It makes no sense to me how people who think God is all knowing and all powerful, couldn't have created life through evolution. It must be another sign of our very limited knowledge on life in general. We can't even create life in a controlled lab, yet we limit God's ability to create life to only the "creation theory".