transitional fossils

creationists always tell me they do not exist; evolutionists tell me they are everywhere. idk why somebody would lie but somebody is because they are not both correct, so could somebody show me a link to transitional fossils that are from a good source?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
creationists always tell me they do not exist; evolutionists tell me they are everywhere. idk why somebody would lie but somebody is because they are not both correct, so could somebody show me a link to transitional fossils that are from a good source?

No one's lying, or at least no one needs to lie. It's probably more likely just a matter of interpretation and lack of knowledge.
Evolutionary biologists interpret fossils, and creationists don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's probably a bit old hat now, but Archaeopteryx (I'm guessing at the spelling here) is often touted as a transitional fossil - showing characteristics of reptiles and birds.

But really, if you think about the implications of evolution, all fossils are transitional since evolution is ongoing ...

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
creationists always tell me they do not exist; evolutionists tell me they are everywhere. idk why somebody would lie but somebody is because they are not both correct, so could somebody show me a link to transitional fossils that are from a good source?

http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm#whales

This is a good treatment of birds

http://darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm#Birds

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
creationists always tell me they do not exist; evolutionists tell me they are everywhere. idk why somebody would lie but somebody is because they are not both correct, so could somebody show me a link to transitional fossils that are from a good source?

The popular claim of creationists is that there missing links. This probably originated from the time that the pattern of a dependency tree was first noticed in the fossil record and as people put pieces of the puzzle together they obviously found a few pieces missing and started looking for them.
If one is to try to put all known living things and all known previously living things (based on the fossil record) on a family tree type chart based on physiology, there are cases where it is not always immediately obvious which branch connects to which and there are cases where there isn't a uniform record of fossils showing the change from one form to another. However as time goes on, we find more and more fossils and more and more of the tree can be filled in with varying degrees of certainty. There are also other methods (dna etc) for determining the correct relationships between life forms.
Creationists try like to highlight this as a 'problem' with the Theory of Evolution when it is no such thing.
The only way one would expect a perfect, complete fossil record, is if every single living thing got fossilized when it died and if we were able to collect and analyze every such fossil.
Creationists like to characterize evolution as a series of sudden steps when the truth is much more a case of gradual change. They tend to imply that the fossil record shows a set of distinct unchanging species with no 'intermediary' fossils. However, if looked at correctly, every fossil and every current species is an intermediary form between its ancestors and its descendants.
An easy way to refute the creationists claims is to point out that they too will accept that every dog species know today is descended from a common ancestor yet no-one can produce a complete set of fossil dog skeletons showing all the various forms including intermediary forms that dogs have every taken.

Originally posted by amannion
No one's lying, or at least no one needs to lie.

Some of the creationists I know do lie and readily pass on as fact what they know to be lies. I am also quite sure that a significant number of the people who generate creationist material, for the web or dissemination amongst their followers, intentionally lie.
I believe that court case in the US involving creationists, the creationists were conclusively shown to be liars both when it came to creationism and also when it came to their tactics involving forwarding their agenda.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm#whales

This is a good treatment of birds

http://darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm#Birds

The cladogram below is based upon the presentation by Richard O. Prum, on the Theropod origin of birds, in the January 2002 issue of The Auk, journal of the American Ornithologists' Union. Prum combined evidence from the researches of Paul Sereno and discoveries reported from China by Xu, Ji and their colleagues. The illustration of Caudipteryx zoui, a 120 million year old fossil from the Cretaceous of China, is by Joe Tucciarone whose artwork richly enhances the History of the Universe website. Many of his paintings may be seen Tucciarone's Gallery.

In recent years dinosaur and avian taxonomy has benefited immensely from the extremely detailed fossils unearthed in the fine sandstones of the Liaoning province of China. This cladogram shows the evolutionary relationships within the Theropod Dinosaurs which, along with the Sauropod and Ornithischian Dinosaurs, make up the great class of Earth's dominant animals that went extinct 65 million years ago. That is, all except for the Euornithes, the only group to survive the environmental disaster resulting from the impact on Earth of an immense asteroid or meteor. These have evolved to become our 10,000 species of living birds -- our modern dinos.

All of the individuals and groups shown here are transitionals between the reptilian Dinosaurs and modern birds. Asterisks indicate fossils for which primitive (*) or modern (***) feathers are now known. As paleontologists find additional new species, and better examples of presently known ones, it may be anticipated that the great majority, if not all, of the Theropods will prove to have been feathered creatures in transition.

This isn't proof. It's just science speak.

Originally posted by josephw
This isn't proof. It's just science speak.

Oh, that's rich! Science speak! So if you're too stupid to understand something, it doesn't count as evidence? Is that how it works?

Originally posted by amannion
No one's lying, or at least no one needs to lie. It's probably more likely just a matter of interpretation and lack of knowledge.
Evolutionary biologists interpret fossils, and creationists don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's probably a bit old hat now, but Archaeopteryx (I'm guessing at the spelling here) is often touted as a transitio ...[text shortened]... the implications of evolution, all fossils are transitional since evolution is ongoing ...

"Evolutionary biologists interpret fossils, and creationists don't know what the hell they're talking about.”

The point is that people are interpreting fossils, they are trying to
find ways to make the pieces fit and then later tell us how they
are related to one another. Since the word science is being applied
to this interpretation some people put this process on par with
physics and so on. Calling something science does not mean that
processes are flawless and the methods being used correct, let
alone the conclusions being reached.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Evolutionary biologists interpret fossils, and creationists don't know what the hell they're talking about.”

The point is that people are interpreting fossils, they are trying to
find ways to make the pieces fit and then later tell us how they
are related to one another. Since the word science is being applied
to this interpretation some people put t ...[text shortened]... flawless and the methods being used correct, let
alone the conclusions being reached.
Kelly

Are you saying that physics is not science?

The problem here is definitions, as somebody's stated above.

Let's say I'm asked to give two numbers.
I say "easy, 1 and 3"
Now, someone says "give me an in-between number"
I say "Ok, 2"
That someone says "2 isn't an inbetween number, it's a number in its own right."
I say "Ok then, 1.5"
That someone says "1.5 isn't an in-between number, it's a number in its own right"
I say "ok then, 1.25"

And so on. Whenever you find a transitional fossil, you don't fill a gap, you just create two equally sized gaps either side. Would you consider 1.25 an in-between number? If you would, then transitional fossils have been found. If you wouldn't, then transitional fossils don't exist but also can't exist.

Originally posted by amannion
Evolutionary biologists interpret fossils, and creationists don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I'm reccing that. Just because it's the first laugh, which was more than a giggle, all day!

Originally posted by rwingett
Are you saying that physics is not science?

No
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Evolutionary biologists interpret fossils, and creationists don't know what the hell they're talking about.”

The point is that people are interpreting fossils, they are trying to
find ways to make the pieces fit and then later tell us how they
are related to one another. Since the word science is being applied
to this interpretation some people put t ...[text shortened]... flawless and the methods being used correct, let
alone the conclusions being reached.
Kelly

No one is claiming science is flawless - far from it. Of course people are making interpretations and trying to make pieces fit a puzzle - this is science in action.
Scientists try to make their puzzle pieces fit into a bigger picture that is consistent, predictive, elegant, and as simple as possible.
Our evolutionary interpretations of fossils aren't exact and (sound the drum roll here) may be wrong - but they're the best interpretations we have at the moment. which is pretty much what science gives us - the best explanations at the moment. They can get better, they can be superseded, they can even be proven wrong. But if you want to prove it wrong you've got the onus to demonstrate a better explanation.

Have you got one?

No, I didn't think so.

Originally posted by amannion
No one is claiming science is flawless - far from it. Of course people are making interpretations and trying to make pieces fit a puzzle - this is science in action.
Scientists try to make their puzzle pieces fit into a bigger picture that is consistent, predictive, elegant, and as simple as possible.
Our evolutionary interpretations of fossils aren't ex ...[text shortened]... the onus to demonstrate a better explanation.

Have you got one?

No, I didn't think so.

You are funny, yep in the realm of science and fossils you get the
best story people can come up with and it changes all the time as
your version of truth in the natural universe changes.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are funny, yep in the realm of science and fossils you get the
best story people can come up with and it changes all the time as
your version of truth in the natural universe changes.
Kelly

Like most things in life - other than religious thought of course - yes, it changes as new information comes to light ....