There is no indication in the fossil record that any kind of animal turned (even very slowly) into another?

Question

it's commonly assumed that the fossil record provides evidence for evolution

if evo is true, the fossil record is the record of life since it began

if single simple organisms gave rise to every single living creature on earth

there should be millions if not billions of transitional tpyes of fossils interlining the differnet kinds of species from one another

dinos and birds should have loads, even if for arguments sake the archeopteryx (forgiv the spelling) was indeed a missing link, isn't it a bid scary taht there is only one known transitional fossil to account for th thousndans of dinosaur and the millions of birds that ever lived?

there should be loads of clerly idetifiable msiing kinds, and in museums for all to point at, not kept away in unseen intistituions

we have about a quarter of a million differnet fossil species in museums today

1000's of them should be intermediate types, so where are they all?

Answer 1

You should think for yourself, ot just think period. Here, you are just mindlessly repeating some creationist nonsense. Study science and compare it objectively with this stuff you utter here. I used to get two books on creationism and two on evolution and compare them as fairly as I was able. I have done this many times, so I have seen your arguments, and I have seen them refuted logically. I challenge you to do the same as I have long done. if you do not fear the truth, you will be glad to find it. Perfect conditions are needed for fossils to form, so there are more than I would have thought, and more being discovered constantly. Whatever scientists find, creationists are not going to admit that their groundless beliefs are disproven. To learn truth, one must look at evidence objectively and comprehensively. Creationists start out with a firm belief and refuse to change it, however strongly it is disproven. They only consider things that seem to support their beliefs, however feeble or even absurd they may be, and blind themselves to any disproof of their beliefs, however strong it is.

Answer 2

I think you have to first define what you expect a transitional fossil would look like.

When it comes to the lizard-to-bird idea, there are far more transitional fossils than most people seem to know about, most without wings, and one with four wings.

Many people are mislead by creationist apologists to believe that there are no, or very few, transitional fossils. When paleontologists found archaeopteryx (in 1855), creationists cried hoax (the possibility of hoaxes should not be ruled out), but as more and more fossil evidence appeared, creationists kept changing the target -- first it was a lizard-bird they wanted as proof, then it was a transitional fossil between lizard and lizard-bird, and so on.

Well, we have those, and there are many more points of similarity between these fossils besides feathers and wings.

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_...

So what about the percentage of transitional fossils compared to the whole body of fossils found? Well, one issue is what you define as being transitional. Transitional between what and what? To someone who studies fossil organisms, all fossils are transitional.

Another issue is whether organisms were likely to become fossilized; that some organisms were far more prolific than others, and in environments were fossilization was more likely.

For example, trilobites were, apparently, very successful breeders, had hard exoskeletons, and they lived on the ocean floor. That makes them good candidates for fossilization, as opposed to forest-dwelling animal whose corpse would more likely be eaten by other animals, insects, and micro-organisms. I'm sure there are creatures which lived for which we will never find fossils.

So comparing the quantity of "transitional" fossils to the entire number of fossils found is not a good indicator of how prolific a species was, nor whether there were never transitional species.

Further, how many valid "transitional" fossils do you require as proof of "transitional" species? Strictly speaking, one valid fossil should be enough, but everyone wants several of the same species.

Where we have lots of fossils (trilobites, for example), we have a more complete picture, including the apparent evolutionary path.

Answer 3

I take it you are American from that diatribe you have just unleashed- glad i didn't go to school there

Apologies for thinking you were American ,it makes it worse knowing you went to private school and uni here-unfortunately creationist packs are being touted by big American money into our schools and universities , i just hope our kids can see past the power of brainwashing through all this- (My opinion)

Answer 4

cathail? absolutely right, 100%, and what he says is very relevant to the question, pretty much answers it.

Another point is that changes between species can be very quick.  But there's a lot that isn't understood is biology.  The chances of proteins and DNA forming by chance in the right way, in the first place, is truly, staggeringly, miniscule.  And the way useful characteristics can seem to spring up, fully formed.  All these questions and more are known and written and theorised about by biologists of all kinds, and there is much to play for.  It's an intelligent question which is getting some good answers.

I highly recommend the section on biology in Bill Bryson's book A Brief History of Nearly Everything, which doesn't shirk any of this stuff.

Yes your question cetainly does not disprove the origin of species by natural selection, as zebbeddee's point makes clear, but erm, I'm pretty sure there are definite examples of transitional lifeforms, even if, for the reasons given, we could not have them all.  C'mon trained evolutionary biologists, help us out here!

Gary Oster and the others complete the answer to this question (I vote it best answer).

******************************

OK now I'm voting Wilf for best answer - it's completed my understanding of this, by the way.

Answer 5

You're parroting creationist BS. The fossil record clearly illustrates and, in fact, proves that evolution has occurred.

Answer 6

I challenge you to show me a continuous record of your descent from your great great ... grandparent in the time of jesus. You can't? Does that lead you to assume that you did not have an ancestor at that time but rather one of your more recent ancestors sprung up from nowhere and you are therefor not a decendent of adam and therefor not human and can therfor never inherit the kingdom of heaven as that privilidge is reserved only for man.

When you say you attended 2 degrees does that mean you were the cleaner and sat at the back or that they were in science and you failed them because you refused to accept self evident facts.  In addition you are by the denial of logic refusing to accept the one gift that seperates man from other species, if you believe in god is that not to insult that god.

Answer 7

The one thing that Darwin got very wrong was his proposition that evolution is a steady and continuous process.  We now know that it is not: evolution is episodic and when it happens, it happens quickly.  There is no such thing as a "transitional" species.  A species will evolve in response to a catastrophic event (usually climatic) and will be equipped to survive in its environment when other species cannot.  There is an old, hackneyed question which asks "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes around and when will they become human?"  The answer is that both species are fully evolved as apes and humans: they are not transitional and will not turn into something else.

The danger is that whilst it is possible to place fossils into a time-line based on geographical and biological evidence, there is no evidence to suggest that a particular species evolved from the one that immediately precedes it in the time line.  We now know from DNA evidence that H.Sapiens did not evolve from H.Neanderthalensis, our immediate predecessor in the time-line but in the absence of any other DNA evidence, we cannot be certain from which species of hominid we did evolve from.

In other words, your question is flawed, being based on incorrect assumptions and misinterpretation of evidence.

Answer 8

There are among the fossils many many representatives of transitional forms.  Nobody knows how many there are because there is an incomplete record.  We will never know.  The majority of life disappeared without leaving a trace.  Then there are the ones people don't talk about, the many millions of fossilized life forms at the bottoms of the oceans.  

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord...

There are indeed many other transitional forms between reptiles and birds (note I did not write dinosaurs), not just one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...

The thing is, it is proof of evolution.  There is NO proof of any other method of life evolving or being created on Earth.  The ONLY pure correct unbeatable completely supported science is evolution.  

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Answer 9

mammoth to elephant

sabretooth tiger to tiger

these animals evolved after the metorite struck.

after the metorite that hit the earth causing the ice age many of the smaller dinosaurs evolved feathers to keep warm and evolved into birds , fossils showing the bone structure of these reptiles are similar to modern day birds. PROOF OF EVOLUTION  Larger dinosaurs died out during the meteor strike, if you study animals that existed during the different prehistioric periods (crustacious - jurassic etc) you can see links you have to know what to look for.

Answer 10

Here's something thats happening right now which proves the evolutionary theory

Because elephants are hunted so often for their tusks, only elephants with smaller/no tusks are surviving, overall. So these elephants are mating, and passing on the 'small tusk' gene to their offspring.

As a result, elephants are actually EVOLVING into animals with smaller tusks. That is how evolution works. Species adapt to environmental/necessary changes to keep their species alive. x

Answer 11

I recommend you not ask a question if you are already convinced of an answer.

Answer 12

archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil because it is a bird and nothing more.  It has a 4 chambered heart not like a reptile that has 3 chambers.  I have to laugh at people who can honestly think that an animal can change in to a different kind of animal over time.  This is a huge change.  The person who said that the mammoth into the elephant.  This I would say is the same kind of animal.  This is microevolution that is a variation within that specific kind of animal.  Macroevolution which is claimed as science is when a animal changes into a completely different kind of animal.  This is like a snake evolving into a bird.  This is not something I would call science.

Answer 13

Actually the guy is correct. There is NO evidence in any museum. There is better evidence for evolution in living creatures, such as snakes, dolphins, birds etc. One of the most commonly used example is the horse. Follow the evidence literally and you will think, what are they on about?

Answer 14

Even today, with our "modern technology", there are many undiscovered remains waiting to surprise us.  Although nobody has pieced together a series of forms, there have been discoveries of early "proto" forms, like those from which whales are thought to have developed.

You definitely need to do more reading and research on your own, instead of just repeating various Creationist claims that continue to be debunked with new discoveries.

Answer 15

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran...

Part of the problem is that there is no simple characteristic of a single fossil that marks it as a transitional species.  Any given species simply "is", it's a complete organism.  Only in comparison to ancestors and descendants can it be considered transitional.

Human are a transitional species as are lions and tigers and grizzlies and polar bears and panda bears and every single other animal species that may eventually have descendants that have time to change.  Unless we kill them all of course

Answer 16

I think that you have some fundamental misunderstandings.

First, every species that ever lived had to be adapted to its environment and there would never have been an organism that was half one thing and half another - it would have failed to compete in any environment. You think of Archaeopteryx as transitional - yet at the time it would have been a fully functional organism living and competing in an environment to which it was adapted. It might never have been related to the birds who are descended from feather-bearing ancestors.

The fossil record, incomplete though it is, gives us a picture of the type of organisms living at that time - and we can clearly see that in any Geological time, they were different from what's around today so there has been evolution over billions of generations.

One problem with fossils is that they tell you nothing about the genetic relationships between them - no DNA left after fossilization so we can only do the best we can to interpret them. We have to rely on extant animals and obtaining more genetic information from them to try to understand the origins of speciation events.

There are periods of mass extinction followed by rapid speciation (read about punctuated equilibrium as one theory), how this occurs, when changes in the Earth puts pressure on genomes to adapt to new conditions is yet to be fully understood.

Answer 17

the conditions for a dead creature to be fossilised are very specific. so generally fossils are more widespread at times of mass extinction, as there are more dead creatures all at once, so a higher chance of fossils being formed.

the transition periods wont have seen much of these mass extinctions, so dead animals will have just rotted and decayed just as they do now.

Answer 18

true

Answer 19

Evolution is the belief principle that humans originated from primitive apes and pigs. It is not entirely false and named EVolution for a reason.

Creationists are and were created in the spirit and image of the Almighty Father and this too is evidenced in their held beliefs and outlook.

I seek top be disproved but am firmly rooted in my beliefs of what is apparently obvious, judging from present social climate and rule and the resulting moral decay and warfare within the world.

Answer 20

Your logic is wrong.

First it's a miracle to find a single complete fossil of ANY animal that lived millions years ago.

And even if we really have a quarter of a million different fossils (250,000) MOST O)F THEM INCOMPLETE by the way, that's nothing compared to the billions and BILLIONS of living creatures that have lived and died over millions of years; that's like trying to compare a fistful of sand with all the sand in the World..

By the way, please post all your degrees in Science and all your published researches and books on the subject of evolution.

Answer 21

I don't regard fossils as needed to prove that evolution is a fact and does exist.  New diseases proves that one disease can in a short time evolve into something unexpected.

Regarding bones and skeletons....  I look to a poodle or dauchund .dog that did not exist 300 years ago to believe in evolution.  There're here now where did they come from?  Bird Flu is in Indonesia...  Where did it come from?  It evolved pure and simple..

Where did the white race come from?  It evolved from the Adam and Eve whose skin was quite black1!!!

Answer 22

I'm sorry,but we have fossils of evolution just look in museums,internet,pictures,shows,held in captivity to study,etc.I'm telling you its a fact,and plus embrology,same structures from different animals,gradulism,natural selection,etc shows it to not just fossils.Not to mention DNA scientist match DNA with other organisms to tell.Its a fact.

Answer 23

One thing that might help you understand what's going on is to appreciate the difference between 'evolution' and 'speciation'. Evolution is the process of a species changing over time as a response to a changing environment (i.e. adapting through the process of natural selection). The elephant tusk story given by another Answerer is an example.

Speciation happens when a population of organisms is split into two separate populations - let's say on an island that is split into two by rising sea levels (sea levels have risen and fallen many times throughout Earth's history, for a variety of reasons there is no need to go into here).

Now, conditions on each of the 'new' islands are not going to be identical, and will almost certainly diverge further with the passage of time. The separate populations of our original species will therefore evolve in different ways, in response to the different conditions in which they find themselves. In time they will become so different from one another that they will no longer be able to interbreed - we will have two species where originally we had only one. If and when sea levels fall and our two islands again become one, this will remain the case - this is how speciation happens, how 'new' types of plant or animal arise.

I hope this helps to make the situation clearer.

Answer 24

Actually, there should not be very many fossils at all, because the conditions needed to create a fossil are created very rarely. Only a fraction of any species leaves any fossil evidence.

As for the haveing fossils in a museum; many fossils in museums are fake eg: Plaster dinosaur skeletons.

Answer 25

Ummmm ... isn't there plenty of evidence, in most of the living creatures of one type of animal turning into another. Like, don't snakes have really small, but un-used(!) legs towards the rear of their bodies. And penguins having flippers with the internal bone structures identical to flighted birds.

The  change is such a slow process and the number of fossils so small in comparison, that it's not that unlikely that 'transitional types' are not found. We should hardly expect to find a fish with legs fossilised.

Answer 26

Not the sharpest knife in the rack, are you?

I suggest you go back to the basics of Geology, and learn the conditions under which fossils are formed, and learn about geological time as well.

Edit:

"Haylely i am biritish i went to a private school and have attended 2 degrees at uni"

Then why can't you spell "British"? And get degrees, you don't just "attend" them.

If you took every creature that has ever lived and drew a big family tree of what came from what and what turned into what, then the fossil record would just show thin slices through certain branches. The fossil record is a long way from complete.