True. A fossil is just a snapshot within the fluid dynamic of population genetics but, when compared with other fossils, it can help demonstrate transitions between morphological traits over time. Fossil remains present the most wonderful, 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle.
@ejdf870 I'm going to think well of you and assume you merely reacted to the title. The video makes the point that individual fossils represent individual organisms within breeding populations and therefore, they are not transitioning from or to anything. Rather, it is stratigraphically ordered seqences of fossils that demonstrate evolutionary transitions of breeding populations.
@achzdck You've confused biology with a nonbelief in deities. That's a common misconception among religious fundamentalists. And, this may come as a shock to you, but science doesn't "prove" theories. Theories are explanations of a series of facts and they are either shown to be valid (consistant with known facts) or invalid (not consistant with known facts.) Evolution has been repeatedly demonstrated to be valid over the past 150 years.
Equally true would be that there are no non-transitional fossils. Since climates change and the continents are ricocheting around the earth, every population will be subject to evolutionary pressures large or small and will change to adapt. Since both statements are equally valid, I can only conclude that the meaningful content of the word "transitional" in both statements is zero.
@artgoat "..every population will be subject to evolutionary pressures large or small and will change to adapt." Not true entirely. Many populations survive unchanged for thousands or millions of years despite changing conditions.
I'd suggest you investigate some of Niles Eldredge's work, which makes a strong case for the notion that although evolutionary pressures are always at work, its relatively rare for them to cause significant change.
@Keinlicht I stated that badly. Changes in environment do not cause changes, nor do species adapt to evolutionary pressures. That's practically Lamarckism. Organisms accumulate mutations over time. Not all mutations result in phylogenetic changes (how would the fossil record show that a species developed the ability to digest a toxic plant?) The bulk of our genetic code is not really related to gross structure, so structural changes would be statistically rarer. With respect to Drs G & E.
I recently read about a genetic experiment where a scientist altered a gene to see if he could prevent the fusing of two bones in chickens (which make the beak) so that they would be the same as they would have been in ancestors (and how crocodiles are today.)
Ethnics laws meant he had to destroy the animal rather than letting it hatch but early stages indicated he was successful.
I've always felt when creationists ask for transitional fossils they are asking for something in the middle of morphing, like a human changing to a werewolf and all of a sudden a mud slide buries him. It really seems like a silly term, when I think of it that way. Who knows maybe someone will find a fossilized caterpillar in a cocoon and we can finally give the creationists what they want, if it hasn't already been found, done and rejected. Very nice video Claire. Love the science stuff you do.
Just a question, If the skeletons of a group of 8 yr olds were found in one place, and another bunch were found further away but belonging to say16 yr olds. Would a group of adult skeletons found in a 3rd location appear to be seperate species based on the sizes of the bones? Or for example, would the remains of a tadpole after the growth of limbs, but before loss of the tail be considered transitional if next to the remains of a frog?
@ThisPageStaysREAL One of the inherent problem with fossils is determining when if fossils in the same strata are different species or if their size and other differences are ontological differences due to the organisms being at different life stages when they died. How one figures that out varies depending on the type of organism one is dealing with.
Thanks for putting words to a vague sense I've felt developing at the back of my mind for some time now, Claire! The question of whether a fossil is "transitional" or not pertains entirely to OUR knowledge of it and its relatives, and is not a quality that inheres in the fossil itself. Any given organism exists in itself and for itself, without any a priori teleological purpose.
@BarryGormley2010 Yes, you make a very good point. However, I wasn't arguing that the fossil record shows no evolutionary transitions. In fact some groups, such a Cretaceous ammonites, have very well recorded transitions, almost generation to generation. My point was similar to one made by Stephen Jay Gould in an article for Natural History magazine, "A Quagga is a Quagga." Breeding populations transition. Individuals within breeding populations within a single generation do not.
@achzdck quit replying to me. your brain has taken a turn for the worst. get H E L P. from a real doctor preferably; not one of your alien friends. have a nice life!
That was good Claire...spot on! Short and sweat! I do not understand these tards who do not get this stuff! It is like they are trying to see the forest through the trees but keep getting hit on the head with a religious 2x4! Sometimes I just feel like giving up!
waw it really has been too long since I saw/heard an intelligent voice from the south, you really have become like moderate muslims, secretely there, but rarely heard, I'm glad you speak up!
(also a rather convincing point you're making because ironically, every transitional form found creates to gaps one before and after the new fossil, so it is indeed a mess because of creationists, although darwin did mention transitional fossils... ow well, wouldn't be his first error, I guess?)
@ImaginaryMdA Darwin wrote a whole chapter about the paucity of transitional forms. Of course, fossils representing intermediates forms (which is what is really meant by "tranisitonal fossils") are far better known than in his day.
Just a thought - there are no moving pictures - merely a sequence of stills and they when played in sequence to humans at a particular speed - look like they are moving.
Thank you for pointing out that we all fall into a trap of playing on a creationist playing field when we engage conversations which contain the idea of a transitional fossil. The creationist who does not want evolution to exist - says when you discover something like Tiktaalik that rather than being a "transitional" fossil you have now created a bigger problem as you now need two "transitional" fossils from A to Tiktaalik and from Tiktaalik to B.
The fabled crocoduck surely has to have a better sound than a simple duck quack... I don't suppose there's a way we can get a crocodile to growl through a kazoo into a microphone?
All arguments are inductive, that's just something the athiest/science community must eventually own up to. But if you really want the truth, it is that there is nothing one should hold as immutable truth. Philosophy is the only way.
This is exactly my problem with the term transitional fossils. I always felt that it is misleading because it does not represent how evolution actually works. Whether or not an organism appears transitional is inconsequential. Natural selection is "daily and hourly scrutinizing". Evolution works on a continuum and therefore everything is transitional.
Oh the horror the creatards have us over a fence. . .not. Although I'd like Creationists to prove there was a talking snake with fossil evidence see them pick that nugget of truth out of their cherry redneck asses.
There are more transitional fossils then there have been bibles printed on Earth . Virtual all fossils are transitional less than 1% are static living fossils.
@flyingscience Actually the flipside to observation that fossils, as moments in time, cannot by definition be transtional, is that all fossils (as well as living organisms) represent points on a continuum of transition.
@achzdck re:"Im an avid researcher of the Megaliths on every continent . What you were taught in school doesnt line up with MATH or Pure Science .....HOW DO MEN WITHOUT A WHEEL AND COPPER TOOLS QUARRY DIORITE STONES THAT WEIGH 50 to 200 TON STONES ?Diorite is only cut by diamond tipped tools ......Then move them 80 miles and up the MOUNTAIN PEAKS Top .....FILL ME IN ! DIVIDE 6.5 MILLION BY 22 YEARS AND SEE WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE"
@achzdck Apprently I am not beneath notice since you noticed me and how kind of you to compare me to the great scientist Einstein, although intelligent and well red I am nowhere near his caliber intellect. As to respect for an others opinion, I would happily give you that respect if your opinion were in the least bit deserving, however it is not. It is ill informed and punctuated with capitals in an attempt to be heard, pathetic. Those places you mention were political in nature, not atheist.
@bunsinspace I've used Joe Hisaishi's music in a number of videos. For instance, I used music from "Spirited Away" extensively in my video series about Appalachian geologic history. I'm particularly fond of the pieces "The House at Swamp Bottom" and "It's Hard Work."
@achzdck No, you're not bothering me, and I have no intention of blocking you or deleting your comments. It's just that the video had nothing to do with archaelogy. I stated a preference, not a demand. :)
I study mafic cumulate xenoliths, which are exactly analgous to biological evolution. Only they snapshot magmatic evolution. The transition from primitive, low silica high magnesia magmas to evolved, high silica low magnesia lavas. Actually, it's striking how much language is shared between descriptions of biological and magmatic evolution...
@achzdck Since when has anyone killed in the name of atheism? It is easy to look upon willful ignorance with contempt and self righteous, arrogant blowhards with disdain...but hate, nah. I wouldn't waste the effort on something with so small a return. Relax buddy, take a pill...maybe take all of the prescribed dosage cause I think you missed a few meds last trip to the medicine cabinet, hope you get better :)
thumbs up!oh,and my 13 year old daughter has never seen a crocoduck...to her credit,her remark was somthing along the lines of "HOLY CRAP!WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?!?"makes me so proud!
@achzdck I don't mind if you post comments to my videos but it would be much appreciated if your comments were at least marginally connected to the topic of the video.
Intuitively one would expect transitional forms to be found in the fossil record, but then, as I have recently been reminded, intuitively the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
I really prefer the term "intermediate form" to transitional form. Common ancestor is my favorite reply to the old one about "you say we came from monkeys and apes!".
well, another way to look at it is, that all the fossils are transitional.
the claim I heard aginst this is that "all the fossils we have ever found, are of fully formed animals, and none were half of one thing, and half of another"
if that's what they call a transitional fossil, than yes, there are none.
@achzdck r u one of those scientologist morons? just cuz we don't know how something got 2 b here, doesn't mean we get 2 invoke magic or aliens. its called science: observe, experiment, and learn. take nothing without evidence
for every wackadoodle picture they photoshop i can show them a crazier one in nature. for every crockoduck i show them a platypus. for every duckdog, a giraffe. nature has made some pretty crazy lookin animals if u really think about it ;)
The only way you can every "win" an argument with Creationists is not to have it. It's like trying to "win" a nuclear war with terrorists who have nukes. They are convinced they are going to heaven no matter what. So they are perfectly happy to blow themselves up, as long as you and everyone you know and all civilization is reduced to dust.
Excellent. I've had a similar realization; there are no transitional fossils simply because the fossil itself represents a fully formed species in its own right.
I receive blank looks from dullards of that Ray/Kirk type when I declare to them "there are and never will be any NON transitional fossils since evolution of species does not stop for coffee breaks. All fossils are transitional between the ancestors and descendants."
Conversely each and every one of us is a transitional fossil. (Well without the fossil part that is) (then again it depends who you're talking about :P)
As good an effort as this is, it will probably still go over the heads of creationist types. Can’t expect a rational explanation to make sense to an irrational mind. And interestingly as thoroughly as transitional fossils and ring species have been explained to them, you hardly see creationists thoroughly explain the biblical classification “kind”. And most don’t seem to realize that they have a double standard for what they accept as evidence.
So I'm confused You say produced by Claire and fatassed cats. But I've only ever seen one on camera. Whats the other one(s) doing Operating the camera?
Ray Comfort is actually in a transitional state. He is caught between being a devout christian and being an evil homosexual .... Cameron's refusing to do it until they get the OK from Jesus himself .... but seriously, of course there are no transitional forms in the way that he describes them. This is because he has absolutely no idea how the evolutionary process works. It would be like me, a mere biology hobbyist, debunking quantum mechanics using evolution by means of natural selection. :oO
Platypi are living transitional fossils if there genetic code counts ^_^ they share a common ancestor with reptiles, birds and mammals (Warm blooded reptiles share egg protein genes). The egg protein of birds and monotremes is so similar that it most have developed before theropods and therapsids diverged :3 Who needs fossils when you have living proof :D
@WildwoodClaire1 surprising there aren't more types of warm blooded reptiles then ^_^ I think pterosaurs were supposed to have fur like mammals... Lack of sufficient information to say for sure. I know therapsids diverged from reptiles before dinosaurs even existed. The egg proteins must have developed before that since both birds and monotremes share the genes :3
@PinkProgram " they share a common ancestor with reptiles, birds and mammals"
Is that statement not applicable to all animals? Since we all effectively a common ancestry, just you'd have to go further back in time to find the common ancestor between me and a newt than with me and you.
@LeoMRogers I don't have any ancestors to share... I'm not a living thing ^_^ as to the point to the platypus being transitional it has obvious transitional genetics that show exactly where it diverged from reptiles and birds. If it has avian egg proteins that means that it had an ancestor with birds after the point those proteins developed. It also has mammalian protogenes that show which reptilian genes they were modified from which firmly links mammals to reptiles.
A entertainingly precise video argument. Someone might want to keep track of the spread of the "Claire admits there are no translational fossils" meme, based on quote mining the opening.
Doh! Claire don't make sense like this! They'll quote mine you into thinking you're saying something you aren't, and finger in the ear lalalala everything else!
@WildwoodClaire1 Ah yes, the old argument from Ignorance Is Bliss, which certainly seems valid in their case. Just think how happy we'll all be without reality intruding into our lives! It's so messy.
But Claire, we've got to show the creatards something. And it's got to be spectacular! Something along the lines of one of the grotesques killed in mid transformation in John Carpenter's "The Thing". Nothing less will satisfy Ray and Kurt and their ilk. See what you can rustle up.
Actually, the only thing that will satisfy Ray and Kurt is lobotomies for the lot of us so we'll be content with their pathetic belief in the ancient fantasies of some desert-dwelling, vermin-infested sheepstealers.
@WildwoodClaire1 The only thing that will satisfy creationtards is if evolution contradicts it self. Thus evolutionists will become creationists, and creationists will become evolutionists. See the funny part?
@grant50 Go to any Christian graveyard and your bound to find many examples of transitional forms between bronze age homo sapiens and modern day ones.
I'll make the inevitable prediction nobody will disagree with and state that I sense creationists sensing an opportunity to cite you and take it out of context, so they can make yet another idiotic video titled: evolutionist admits there are no ...
@avdmeers I'll let you in on something. They're going to spew bullshit with the force of a firehose no matter what anyone says so I may as well relax and have a bit of fun with it.
Analogy - From age 12 to 22, I take a full length photograph of myself. When viewed in sequence, say in a slide show, the images show a TRANSITION from child to adult. But if you look at the pictures individually, which one is the TRANSITIONAL photograph?
@fishypaw I've used a simlier claim in such debated, you know what "counter" I get?
when you change from a baby to an adult, your DNA doesn't change, but evolution claims that vie changes to the DNA, an animal can change form X to Y, and this change was never documented, and never repeated, there for, it can only be taken on, as faith.
my reply to this, is that a "spieciation event" only takes place when a (smart) guy decides to give an animal, a new name.
@mikey1978416 I am not an atheist but not from 'the madness', it is due to the realisation that one cannot form a proposition to believe or disbelieve without at least a definition of 'god' & not one dam person on this planet seems to have one worth while!
5000 Years Ago the FSM created the universe, including Earth. He then spent the next 10 -100 years painstakingly preparing the universe to appear older than it actually is.Our Noodly Creator then placed fossils, hidden under the earth's surface, knowing that they would later be found—thus, seemingly proving that these creatures existed some time ago. Dinosaur bones, for example, were placed so well and in such numbers that it's widely believed dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago.
yeah, fossils just sit there. hehe they don't transition because well, they are as you said, one snapshot. We needed a MOVIE of fossils to prove to them darn creatardism-afflicted creatards that animals did evolve. Why was their god so unimaginative that he never created a mammal with two heads? or 5 legs? If I'm more imaginative than god.... says a few things. I like vids on animal evolution. I know geology is yer bag but these are cool too.
How about archaeopteryx? Isn't that a transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds? And isn't evolution to slow to be captured in one moment in time? Don't some marine mamals have the remnants of the limbs their ancestors once used to walk on land?
@WildwoodClaire1 Ok.. I guess I did! Sorry. I thought this was a video against the theory of evolution. I should have listened more carefully before I began typing. LOL
@SugarInHisBlood The longer answer to your question concerning Archaeopteryx is that a breeding pair of Archaeopteryx produced offspring which were also Archaeopteryx. Individual organisms do not "transition." Rather, the breeding population of which the individuals are a part transitioned over time through tiny, inperceptible modifications within offspring.
@WildwoodClaire1 I understand that completely. And believe it. I just jumped the gun and thought you were championing the cause of no transitional fossils being found. My bad.
True. A fossil is just a snapshot within the fluid dynamic of population genetics but, when compared with other fossils, it can help demonstrate transitions between morphological traits over time. Fossil remains present the most wonderful, 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle.
Marchawc 4 months ago
@Marchawc Yes. That was the point of my video.
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago
So, what are you suggesting as an alternative explanation, that "God" blew some dust and made it all?
ejdf870 5 months ago
@ejdf870 No. Did you actually watch the video and comprehend what it said or are you merely reacting to the title?
WildwoodClaire1 5 months ago
@ejdf870 I'm going to think well of you and assume you merely reacted to the title. The video makes the point that individual fossils represent individual organisms within breeding populations and therefore, they are not transitioning from or to anything. Rather, it is stratigraphically ordered seqences of fossils that demonstrate evolutionary transitions of breeding populations.
WildwoodClaire1 5 months ago
Maybe we should do less talking to creationists and more picture-drawing. I think Crocoduck-boy demonstrated that they react better to pichers.
Or we could just beat them about the head with ambulocetus femurs.....
tctheunbeliever 6 months ago
@achzdck You've confused biology with a nonbelief in deities. That's a common misconception among religious fundamentalists. And, this may come as a shock to you, but science doesn't "prove" theories. Theories are explanations of a series of facts and they are either shown to be valid (consistant with known facts) or invalid (not consistant with known facts.) Evolution has been repeatedly demonstrated to be valid over the past 150 years.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
Proper want to watch Spirited Away now! :(
MasterMalli 6 months ago
Equally true would be that there are no non-transitional fossils. Since climates change and the continents are ricocheting around the earth, every population will be subject to evolutionary pressures large or small and will change to adapt. Since both statements are equally valid, I can only conclude that the meaningful content of the word "transitional" in both statements is zero.
artgoat 6 months ago
@artgoat yes, there is much in what you say.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@artgoat "..every population will be subject to evolutionary pressures large or small and will change to adapt." Not true entirely. Many populations survive unchanged for thousands or millions of years despite changing conditions.
I'd suggest you investigate some of Niles Eldredge's work, which makes a strong case for the notion that although evolutionary pressures are always at work, its relatively rare for them to cause significant change.
Keinlicht 6 months ago
@Keinlicht I stated that badly. Changes in environment do not cause changes, nor do species adapt to evolutionary pressures. That's practically Lamarckism. Organisms accumulate mutations over time. Not all mutations result in phylogenetic changes (how would the fossil record show that a species developed the ability to digest a toxic plant?) The bulk of our genetic code is not really related to gross structure, so structural changes would be statistically rarer. With respect to Drs G & E.
artgoat 6 months ago
I recently read about a genetic experiment where a scientist altered a gene to see if he could prevent the fusing of two bones in chickens (which make the beak) so that they would be the same as they would have been in ancestors (and how crocodiles are today.)
Ethnics laws meant he had to destroy the animal rather than letting it hatch but early stages indicated he was successful.
I wonder if he could do that with a duck too :)
TheRationalizer 6 months ago
@TheRationalizer In any case, atavisms occur from time to time naturally.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
I've always felt when creationists ask for transitional fossils they are asking for something in the middle of morphing, like a human changing to a werewolf and all of a sudden a mud slide buries him. It really seems like a silly term, when I think of it that way. Who knows maybe someone will find a fossilized caterpillar in a cocoon and we can finally give the creationists what they want, if it hasn't already been found, done and rejected. Very nice video Claire. Love the science stuff you do.
ABitOfTheUniverse 6 months ago
@ABitOfTheUniverse yes, I'm pretty sure that's what they have in mind, hence the infamously stupid "crocoduck" illustration.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
Just a question, If the skeletons of a group of 8 yr olds were found in one place, and another bunch were found further away but belonging to say16 yr olds. Would a group of adult skeletons found in a 3rd location appear to be seperate species based on the sizes of the bones? Or for example, would the remains of a tadpole after the growth of limbs, but before loss of the tail be considered transitional if next to the remains of a frog?
ThisPageStaysREAL 6 months ago
@ThisPageStaysREAL One of the inherent problem with fossils is determining when if fossils in the same strata are different species or if their size and other differences are ontological differences due to the organisms being at different life stages when they died. How one figures that out varies depending on the type of organism one is dealing with.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@ThisPageStaysREAL No, their individual developments would suggest their age at the time of death.
fdasherv 6 months ago
Claire,
Unrelated question,
What is the reason for your apparent affinity for die deutsche Sprache?
Just curious.
davetoepfer 6 months ago
@davetoepfer Ich weiss nicht!
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
Comment removed
davetoepfer 6 months ago
Oh noes! The shitting insane cult savages have learned the secret that 100 million scientists have been hiding all along! Noooooo!
NotSoOldHippy 6 months ago
Thanks for putting words to a vague sense I've felt developing at the back of my mind for some time now, Claire! The question of whether a fossil is "transitional" or not pertains entirely to OUR knowledge of it and its relatives, and is not a quality that inheres in the fossil itself. Any given organism exists in itself and for itself, without any a priori teleological purpose.
HebaruSan 6 months ago
@BarryGormley2010 Yes, you make a very good point. However, I wasn't arguing that the fossil record shows no evolutionary transitions. In fact some groups, such a Cretaceous ammonites, have very well recorded transitions, almost generation to generation. My point was similar to one made by Stephen Jay Gould in an article for Natural History magazine, "A Quagga is a Quagga." Breeding populations transition. Individuals within breeding populations within a single generation do not.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@BarryGormley2010 I have the distinct impression that you either did not actually watch my video or you profoundly misunderstood what it said.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@achzdck quit replying to me. your brain has taken a turn for the worst. get H E L P. from a real doctor preferably; not one of your alien friends. have a nice life!
Epostaxis 6 months ago
I'm transitioning as I write! Not a "total transformation", but transitioning atleast.
comeade 6 months ago
No transitional fossil, but I hold the position that every species is a transitional species. What do you think?
I like your Peter and the Wolf.
ekhaat 6 months ago
@ekhaat I think every fossil, and every modern organism, is a single link in a continuum of transition.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Yes, something like that :-)
ekhaat 6 months ago
That was good Claire...spot on! Short and sweat! I do not understand these tards who do not get this stuff! It is like they are trying to see the forest through the trees but keep getting hit on the head with a religious 2x4! Sometimes I just feel like giving up!
FishHeadSalad 6 months ago
well presented
emptywithoutbrain 6 months ago
prepare to be quote mined....
dragonmatt5 6 months ago
waw it really has been too long since I saw/heard an intelligent voice from the south, you really have become like moderate muslims, secretely there, but rarely heard, I'm glad you speak up!
(also a rather convincing point you're making because ironically, every transitional form found creates to gaps one before and after the new fossil, so it is indeed a mess because of creationists, although darwin did mention transitional fossils... ow well, wouldn't be his first error, I guess?)
ImaginaryMdA 6 months ago
@ImaginaryMdA Darwin wrote a whole chapter about the paucity of transitional forms. Of course, fossils representing intermediates forms (which is what is really meant by "tranisitonal fossils") are far better known than in his day.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
any being with descendents is a transitional being.
dangerouslytalented 6 months ago
Brilliant and perceptive, as usual.
derek24hudson 6 months ago
Just a thought - there are no moving pictures - merely a sequence of stills and they when played in sequence to humans at a particular speed - look like they are moving.
johncrwarner 6 months ago 6
Thank you for pointing out that we all fall into a trap of playing on a creationist playing field when we engage conversations which contain the idea of a transitional fossil. The creationist who does not want evolution to exist - says when you discover something like Tiktaalik that rather than being a "transitional" fossil you have now created a bigger problem as you now need two "transitional" fossils from A to Tiktaalik and from Tiktaalik to B.
johncrwarner 6 months ago
but...but...
what about The Missing Link?
Brandt761 6 months ago
The fabled crocoduck surely has to have a better sound than a simple duck quack... I don't suppose there's a way we can get a crocodile to growl through a kazoo into a microphone?
MrLowercaseA 6 months ago
Joy; more quote-mining fodder.
MyOldName 6 months ago
@MyOldName Creatrds are going to misrepresent what rational people say regardless.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
All arguments are inductive, that's just something the athiest/science community must eventually own up to. But if you really want the truth, it is that there is nothing one should hold as immutable truth. Philosophy is the only way.
danrayson 6 months ago
See, even the atheist admit it!!!
ozmoroid 6 months ago
CROCKODUCK!!
leeroynaggins 6 months ago
@leeroynaggins I'ä! I'ä! Crocoduck fthagn!
Brandt761 6 months ago
This is exactly my problem with the term transitional fossils. I always felt that it is misleading because it does not represent how evolution actually works. Whether or not an organism appears transitional is inconsequential. Natural selection is "daily and hourly scrutinizing". Evolution works on a continuum and therefore everything is transitional.
falcoperegrinus82 6 months ago
Very well said.
jdh501 6 months ago
LOOKOUT, CROCODILE BEHIND YOU!!!
It's ok everyone, I'm an Australian.....
ScienceIsKnowledge 6 months ago
Oh the horror the creatards have us over a fence. . .not. Although I'd like Creationists to prove there was a talking snake with fossil evidence see them pick that nugget of truth out of their cherry redneck asses.
MsOneiroi77 6 months ago
Fuck Jesus
1Mafioso4 6 months ago
@1Mafioso4 I have the distinct impression that you either did not actually watch my video or you profoundly misunderstood what it said.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
There are more transitional fossils then there have been bibles printed on Earth . Virtual all fossils are transitional less than 1% are static living fossils.
flyingscience 6 months ago
@flyingscience Actually the flipside to observation that fossils, as moments in time, cannot by definition be transtional, is that all fossils (as well as living organisms) represent points on a continuum of transition.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
Is that really soft porn @1:37?
preptimenow 6 months ago
@preptimenow No, it's educational tv.
cjdragon1988 6 months ago
@achzdck ok you old poop ;)
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
The music from Peter and the Wolf, was the that the duck's theme you put at the end of the video?
If so: I appreciate your attention to detail!
jeevesbond 6 months ago
@jeevesbond yes. Thank you.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@achzdck re:"Im an avid researcher of the Megaliths on every continent . What you were taught in school doesnt line up with MATH or Pure Science .....HOW DO MEN WITHOUT A WHEEL AND COPPER TOOLS QUARRY DIORITE STONES THAT WEIGH 50 to 200 TON STONES ?Diorite is only cut by diamond tipped tools ......Then move them 80 miles and up the MOUNTAIN PEAKS Top .....FILL ME IN ! DIVIDE 6.5 MILLION BY 22 YEARS AND SEE WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE"
Are you currently institutionalized?
Ansonidak 6 months ago
Is it that no fossils are transitional or that all fossils are transitional.
rwstoney 6 months ago
@rwstoney All represent moments in a continuum of transition.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago 4
@rwstoney if all fossils are transitional, then none are.
Brandt761 6 months ago
@achzdck Apprently I am not beneath notice since you noticed me and how kind of you to compare me to the great scientist Einstein, although intelligent and well red I am nowhere near his caliber intellect. As to respect for an others opinion, I would happily give you that respect if your opinion were in the least bit deserving, however it is not. It is ill informed and punctuated with capitals in an attempt to be heard, pathetic. Those places you mention were political in nature, not atheist.
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 you do know that you are merely encouraging him to continue posting, right?
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Yes...feeding trolls and all that, I apologize for my lack of restraint. Forgive?
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
I LOVE Spirited Away as well as the rest of Myazaki's films. Good choice.
bunsinspace 6 months ago
@bunsinspace I've used Joe Hisaishi's music in a number of videos. For instance, I used music from "Spirited Away" extensively in my video series about Appalachian geologic history. I'm particularly fond of the pieces "The House at Swamp Bottom" and "It's Hard Work."
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 "That's awesome!" (quoting your Buttercup avatar and meaning it.) ;-)
bunsinspace 6 months ago
@achzdck No, you're not bothering me, and I have no intention of blocking you or deleting your comments. It's just that the video had nothing to do with archaelogy. I stated a preference, not a demand. :)
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
I study mafic cumulate xenoliths, which are exactly analgous to biological evolution. Only they snapshot magmatic evolution. The transition from primitive, low silica high magnesia magmas to evolved, high silica low magnesia lavas. Actually, it's striking how much language is shared between descriptions of biological and magmatic evolution...
Webofscience 6 months ago
Fucking awesome vid, first one I have seen by you. Definitely subbing.
CappitranoBellephant 6 months ago
I've never seen a fossil of a transformer. I doubt they even ever existed.
wearealltubes 6 months ago
Not all fossils occur via permineralization...what about trace fossils like molds and recrystalized fossils?
UpwardBound5656 6 months ago
@UpwardBound5656 or replaced. I wanted to keep it simple.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
nephy would agree, but he would still argue.
peace.
lardo444 6 months ago
That was very nice..."brevity is the soul of wit"...thank you Claire :)
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
@achzdck Since when has anyone killed in the name of atheism? It is easy to look upon willful ignorance with contempt and self righteous, arrogant blowhards with disdain...but hate, nah. I wouldn't waste the effort on something with so small a return. Relax buddy, take a pill...maybe take all of the prescribed dosage cause I think you missed a few meds last trip to the medicine cabinet, hope you get better :)
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
brilliant Peter & the Wolf clip....
russellchannel 6 months ago
thumbs up!oh,and my 13 year old daughter has never seen a crocoduck...to her credit,her remark was somthing along the lines of "HOLY CRAP!WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?!?"makes me so proud!
practicalmagic9 6 months ago
Well shocking news for me NephilinFree told me Platypus
were put on this earth by god to prove evolution was not true
swinewarrior 6 months ago
@achzdck Someones bitter and angry... :)
esplin227 6 months ago
@achzdck I don't mind if you post comments to my videos but it would be much appreciated if your comments were at least marginally connected to the topic of the video.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago 3
Intuitively one would expect transitional forms to be found in the fossil record, but then, as I have recently been reminded, intuitively the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
captainpeabody 6 months ago
I'd prefer to hear what Clair's cats have to say about fossils than Ray Comfort because:
1. Cats are far, far cuter.
2. Cats have more knowledge of evolutionary history.
shirehorse91 6 months ago
I really prefer the term "intermediate form" to transitional form. Common ancestor is my favorite reply to the old one about "you say we came from monkeys and apes!".
tbdonnelly67 6 months ago
well, another way to look at it is, that all the fossils are transitional.
the claim I heard aginst this is that "all the fossils we have ever found, are of fully formed animals, and none were half of one thing, and half of another"
if that's what they call a transitional fossil, than yes, there are none.
every animal that ever was, was 100% THAT animal.
eyallev 6 months ago
@achzdck r u one of those scientologist morons? just cuz we don't know how something got 2 b here, doesn't mean we get 2 invoke magic or aliens. its called science: observe, experiment, and learn. take nothing without evidence
cruelbusiness1984 6 months ago
for every wackadoodle picture they photoshop i can show them a crazier one in nature. for every crockoduck i show them a platypus. for every duckdog, a giraffe. nature has made some pretty crazy lookin animals if u really think about it ;)
cruelbusiness1984 6 months ago
AGH, NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS?!? MY FAITH IN EVOLUTION IS SHATTERED! Oh, wait, what? There's a reason? Phew! Faith restored.
Also, would a crocoduck quack, or would it growl? I think it would growl. Perhaps we should ask Ray. W/E.
kolonial72 6 months ago
@achzdck well thanks for that little pearl of wisdom, Tom....
Epostaxis 6 months ago
sasha's theme. brilliant!
aMulliganStew 6 months ago
The only way you can every "win" an argument with Creationists is not to have it. It's like trying to "win" a nuclear war with terrorists who have nukes. They are convinced they are going to heaven no matter what. So they are perfectly happy to blow themselves up, as long as you and everyone you know and all civilization is reduced to dust.
MartianStories 6 months ago
Excellent. I've had a similar realization; there are no transitional fossils simply because the fossil itself represents a fully formed species in its own right.
deepashtray 6 months ago
I receive blank looks from dullards of that Ray/Kirk type when I declare to them "there are and never will be any NON transitional fossils since evolution of species does not stop for coffee breaks. All fossils are transitional between the ancestors and descendants."
RyuDarragh 6 months ago
I would of thought crockaduck would croak instead of quack. But that's just me. :)
mjh012363 6 months ago
Conversely each and every one of us is a transitional fossil. (Well without the fossil part that is) (then again it depends who you're talking about :P)
toppledgod 6 months ago
As good an effort as this is, it will probably still go over the heads of creationist types. Can’t expect a rational explanation to make sense to an irrational mind. And interestingly as thoroughly as transitional fossils and ring species have been explained to them, you hardly see creationists thoroughly explain the biblical classification “kind”. And most don’t seem to realize that they have a double standard for what they accept as evidence.
bjeh001 6 months ago
@bjeh001 I didn't do it for creationists because I consider them a waste of my time. I was merely amusing myself.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
So I'm confused You say produced by Claire and fatassed cats. But I've only ever seen one on camera. Whats the other one(s) doing Operating the camera?
scrappydew42 6 months ago 2
@scrappydew42 The little black one shows up once in a blue moon but mostly gives the desk a wide birth when I'm making a video.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
Ray Comfort is actually in a transitional state. He is caught between being a devout christian and being an evil homosexual .... Cameron's refusing to do it until they get the OK from Jesus himself .... but seriously, of course there are no transitional forms in the way that he describes them. This is because he has absolutely no idea how the evolutionary process works. It would be like me, a mere biology hobbyist, debunking quantum mechanics using evolution by means of natural selection. :oO
sum1otosh1 6 months ago
Good concise explanation, I would have waffled a lot more!
finlarg 6 months ago
Platypi are living transitional fossils if there genetic code counts ^_^ they share a common ancestor with reptiles, birds and mammals (Warm blooded reptiles share egg protein genes). The egg protein of birds and monotremes is so similar that it most have developed before theropods and therapsids diverged :3 Who needs fossils when you have living proof :D
PinkProgram 6 months ago
@PinkProgram FYI: The line of reptiles that led to mammals split from the line of reptiles that led to birds in the early Permian Period, at latest.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 surprising there aren't more types of warm blooded reptiles then ^_^ I think pterosaurs were supposed to have fur like mammals... Lack of sufficient information to say for sure. I know therapsids diverged from reptiles before dinosaurs even existed. The egg proteins must have developed before that since both birds and monotremes share the genes :3
PinkProgram 6 months ago
@PinkProgram " they share a common ancestor with reptiles, birds and mammals"
Is that statement not applicable to all animals? Since we all effectively a common ancestry, just you'd have to go further back in time to find the common ancestor between me and a newt than with me and you.
LeoMRogers 6 months ago
@LeoMRogers I don't have any ancestors to share... I'm not a living thing ^_^ as to the point to the platypus being transitional it has obvious transitional genetics that show exactly where it diverged from reptiles and birds. If it has avian egg proteins that means that it had an ancestor with birds after the point those proteins developed. It also has mammalian protogenes that show which reptilian genes they were modified from which firmly links mammals to reptiles.
PinkProgram 6 months ago
that's surely the sound of a crockoduck!
humbleu 6 months ago
All life was at some point at the pinnacle of evolution. If there even is such a thing as "pinnacle of evolution", but you guys know what I'm sayin'.
Holammer 6 months ago
Alternatively EVERY Fossil is transitional - except those that are just at the end before extinction ...
farvision 6 months ago
A entertainingly precise video argument. Someone might want to keep track of the spread of the "Claire admits there are no translational fossils" meme, based on quote mining the opening.
oldsynner 6 months ago
I've oft thought that we ourselves are transitional forms if we continue long enough. :)
MacNutz2 6 months ago
Doh! Claire don't make sense like this! They'll quote mine you into thinking you're saying something you aren't, and finger in the ear lalalala everything else!
Trips1103 6 months ago
All hail the great and mighty Crocaduck!
RadarKat73080 6 months ago
You got the last image wrong. Crocoducks don't lay eggs. They spit out their young in embryonic sacks that resemble Mars Bar wrappers.
bshieldsbb01 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Ah yes, the old argument from Ignorance Is Bliss, which certainly seems valid in their case. Just think how happy we'll all be without reality intruding into our lives! It's so messy.
grant50 6 months ago
But Claire, we've got to show the creatards something. And it's got to be spectacular! Something along the lines of one of the grotesques killed in mid transformation in John Carpenter's "The Thing". Nothing less will satisfy Ray and Kurt and their ilk. See what you can rustle up.
grant50 6 months ago 3
Actually, the only thing that will satisfy Ray and Kurt is lobotomies for the lot of us so we'll be content with their pathetic belief in the ancient fantasies of some desert-dwelling, vermin-infested sheepstealers.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago 7
@WildwoodClaire1 Ouch! O.o
PacalB 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 The only thing that will satisfy creationtards is if evolution contradicts it self. Thus evolutionists will become creationists, and creationists will become evolutionists. See the funny part?
Schneboll 6 months ago
@grant50 Go to any Christian graveyard and your bound to find many examples of transitional forms between bronze age homo sapiens and modern day ones.
enlightendbel 6 months ago
@enlightendbel What sort of changes can I expect to observe?
grant50 6 months ago
Ma'am will you marry me?
Uhmu45 6 months ago
I'll make the inevitable prediction nobody will disagree with and state that I sense creationists sensing an opportunity to cite you and take it out of context, so they can make yet another idiotic video titled: evolutionist admits there are no ...
avdmeers 6 months ago 3
@avdmeers I'll let you in on something. They're going to spew bullshit with the force of a firehose no matter what anyone says so I may as well relax and have a bit of fun with it.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago 17
@WildwoodClaire1 this comment made me picture an auctioneer going as fast as he can...with fire hose force bullshit flying out
mnewf2002 6 months ago
Analogy - From age 12 to 22, I take a full length photograph of myself. When viewed in sequence, say in a slide show, the images show a TRANSITION from child to adult. But if you look at the pictures individually, which one is the TRANSITIONAL photograph?
fishypaw 6 months ago 31
@fishypaw correct. Great analogy.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago 4
@WildwoodClaire1 This was not obvious to me until I watched your video, so ... thank you. :O)
fishypaw 6 months ago
@fishypaw awesome :)
cruelbusiness1984 6 months ago
@fishypaw I've used a simlier claim in such debated, you know what "counter" I get?
when you change from a baby to an adult, your DNA doesn't change, but evolution claims that vie changes to the DNA, an animal can change form X to Y, and this change was never documented, and never repeated, there for, it can only be taken on, as faith.
my reply to this, is that a "spieciation event" only takes place when a (smart) guy decides to give an animal, a new name.
eyallev 6 months ago
@fishypaw Excellent way to explain it to 1st graders and Creationists alike! Of course more of the 1st graders would comprehend it.
ciresieman 6 months ago
@fishypaw Exactly! God created you at 22 whole and complete, just like the bible says. You were never 12. Silly evolutionist.
adolthitler 6 months ago
I'm transitioning to female & I'm a fossil 8)
MilitantPeaceist 6 months ago
This is exactly why i left THE MADNESS of atheism (shockofgod voice)
mikey1978416 6 months ago
@mikey1978416 who said anything about atheism?
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1
I'm just teasing. It's what shock would say. Love your vids.
mikey1978416 6 months ago
@mikey1978416 I am not an atheist but not from 'the madness', it is due to the realisation that one cannot form a proposition to believe or disbelieve without at least a definition of 'god' & not one dam person on this planet seems to have one worth while!
MilitantPeaceist 6 months ago
As an engnieer, I love the precision of your dialog
SiriusMined 6 months ago
Creationists should be fossilized so they finally have their proof.
reepityou 6 months ago
5000 Years Ago the FSM created the universe, including Earth. He then spent the next 10 -100 years painstakingly preparing the universe to appear older than it actually is.Our Noodly Creator then placed fossils, hidden under the earth's surface, knowing that they would later be found—thus, seemingly proving that these creatures existed some time ago. Dinosaur bones, for example, were placed so well and in such numbers that it's widely believed dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago.
JoFreddieFSM 6 months ago
I for one am relived that I can now be out and proud about Science.
TIPinkUnicorn 6 months ago
Your musings are wonderful.
jebus6kryst 6 months ago
yeah, fossils just sit there. hehe they don't transition because well, they are as you said, one snapshot. We needed a MOVIE of fossils to prove to them darn creatardism-afflicted creatards that animals did evolve. Why was their god so unimaginative that he never created a mammal with two heads? or 5 legs? If I'm more imaginative than god.... says a few things. I like vids on animal evolution. I know geology is yer bag but these are cool too.
TruthSurge 6 months ago
How about archaeopteryx? Isn't that a transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds? And isn't evolution to slow to be captured in one moment in time? Don't some marine mamals have the remnants of the limbs their ancestors once used to walk on land?
SugarInHisBlood 6 months ago
@SugarInHisBlood The answer to each of your questions is "yes." You seem to have missedthe point somewhat. :)
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Ok.. I guess I did! Sorry. I thought this was a video against the theory of evolution. I should have listened more carefully before I began typing. LOL
SugarInHisBlood 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 No, it just amazes me that there are people who refuse to see the evidence.
SugarInHisBlood 6 months ago
@SugarInHisBlood The title of the video was sarcastic.
TekLok 6 months ago
@SugarInHisBlood The longer answer to your question concerning Archaeopteryx is that a breeding pair of Archaeopteryx produced offspring which were also Archaeopteryx. Individual organisms do not "transition." Rather, the breeding population of which the individuals are a part transitioned over time through tiny, inperceptible modifications within offspring.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 I understand that completely. And believe it. I just jumped the gun and thought you were championing the cause of no transitional fossils being found. My bad.
SugarInHisBlood 6 months ago
"Consider the Lilly"
flyingfisbeefilms 6 months ago