Top 9 Transitional Fossils (featuring My Poor Kevin)

It feels good to release an educational video once in a while, even if it is incredibly nerdy. In response to the idiotic claim made by creationists that there are no transitional fossils, I'm counting down my Top 9 favourite transitional fossils! Enjoy!

(Note: Aside from my YouTube avatar, I do not own any of the media in this video.)

Cheers!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• transitional
• fossils
• atheism
• creationism

[Mogley52]

TRUE TRANSITIONAL FORMS can't survive, especially if their vital organs are still evolving. Many times evolutionists use similar structures between species as an argument for transitional forms, but the structures are complete, not in a true process of transition. What if similarities between species are because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. Read my article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@Mogley52

But the problem with this assertion is that you're not getting the whole picture.

If the fishibians' gills had turned into lungs, then they would indeed not have survived. But according to the fossil record, it seems that the ancestors of amphibians evolved lungs IN ADDITION to gills, so that fishibians eventually had two breathing mechanisms.

A transitional from fish to amphibian would have incomplete lungs, but it would still survive due to its complete gills.

[Luemas91]

I think it's less likely that they argue that there are no transitional fossils, but more of the line that there aren't enough.

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@Luemas91

Some creationists really do claim that there are no transitional fossils.

As for there not being enough transitional fossils, this argument doesn't work either. The tens of thousands of fossils uncovered in the last two hundred years are only a small fraction of the lifeforms that have existed on Earth for the past 4 billion years. Fossils need the right conditions to form, so a lot of species probably died out without leaving any fossils.

[shedininja001]

I agree. Dogs (an example you gave) are selected by an intelgent agents to produce desired results. Nature, however can not select anything , rather the orginisems must adapt to it, this would not nessarly lead to more complex things, only better suided for survival things. Regardles, its how we got here, and I see it more feesible if a system is in place to guide it, rather then it all happening on its own.

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@shedininja001

You know me - I don't accept the need for God as a guiding force in evolution, nor do I see any evidence for that.

As StandinStann (a Catholic) pointed out, improbability does not mean impossibility. I can easily accept that evolution operates through environmental pressures selecting random, beneficial mutations for survival.

[MrColuber]

I just needed to say that the Cynognathus lived during the Early Triassic, not mid to late (in fact, I think it was the last therapsid that was an important carnivore); a Chiniquodon would have been a much better example of a transitional form (or even the Thrinaxodon).

And I'm surprised you left out Archaeopteryx

[Mogley52]

@QUANTUMJOKER Please fully read my Internet article ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? You'll find it an eye-opener!

[Mogley52]

@QUANTUMJOKER The fossil record doesn't show that. That's what evolutionists read into the fossil record. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record to support what you're saying. Not only are there no transitional forms, but the fossil layers aren't even found in the sequence taught in textbooks. It's not just gills and lungs. The rest of the body and its systems have to change to work with the gills and lungs.

[Mogley52]

@QUANTUMJOKER What you're saying can't happen unless the genes exist first. It's a mathematical fact, they don't make known, that trillions of years won't be enough time for even a single new gene to come into existence by chance mutations, and, in the meantime, all those chance mutations, caused by random radiation from the environment, would have destroyed the species. For every "good" mutation, there would be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, leading to extinction!

[Mogley52]

@QUANTUMJOKER There's no such thing as partially-evolved gills/lungs. Either they're gills or lungs. You're saying that partially-evolved gills can function and do what they do while they're evolving into lungs? That's imagination, not science. Gills are highly complex and specific. Random tampering, even partially, will cause death. Even if the fish barely lives and functions, what survival value is that for the fish over, supposedly, millions and millions of years?

[Mogley52]

@QUANTUMJOKER There are fossils of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals in the same rock stratum! There's a lot about the fossils not known known to the public and that is suppressed in evolutionary-only textbooks. That's why the arguments and evidence of both sides need to be presented. it's only fair. Creationists are not denying evolutionists to teach their. They just want their scientific arguments and evidences also presented. No one's being forced to believe in God.