There Are No Transitional Fossils!

That's right gang. We just can't keep it a secret any longer. For those of you inclined to merely read titles and presume to know what the video is about, this video does not suggest that evolutionary change does not occur.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• fossil
• transition
• transitional
• crocoduck
• creationism
• YEC
• young
• Earth
• creationist
• creatard
• Wholly
• Babble
• Genesis

[Marchawc]

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.

[WildwoodClaire1]

@Marchawc Yes. That was the point of my video.

[ejdf870]

So, what are you suggesting as an alternative explanation, that "God" blew some dust and made it all?

[WildwoodClaire1]

@ejdf870 No. Did you actually watch the video and comprehend what it said or are you merely reacting to the title?

[WildwoodClaire1]

@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.

[johncrwarner]

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.

[WildwoodClaire1]

@rwstoney All represent moments in a continuum of transition.

[artgoat]

@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.

[tctheunbeliever]

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.....

[WildwoodClaire1]

@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.

[Keinlicht]

@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.

[fdasherv]

@ThisPageStaysREAL No, their individual developments would suggest their age at the time of death.