Shouldn't we have thousands of transitional fossils? [YOU RESPOND]

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Shouldn't we have thousands of transitional fossils? [YOU RESPOND]

From: Electronicakid7@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:51 PM
Subject: [General Question] Evolution

 

Ahustine sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.

So, you argue that Australopithecus afarensis aka lucy should be sufficient
to conclude and show that Macro-evolution is correct? What do you think
about this statements?"Shouldn't we have thousands of examples of
Macro-evolution at this point..meaning transitional forms from one species
to another? And shouldn't we have significant numbers of transitional
fossils and bones all over the place?  If the theory its true then it takes
billions of years for species to evolved to another species....Is that
taking place now?? Because if its true then we should be constantly
evolving to a different species as we speak!"  Darwin stated that evolution
would be proved based upon the assumption that transitional forms would be
discovered.  You can check out the origin of species for that claim.  So,
since you know what natural selection means and you know that fossils
support transitions, all I am asking is for proof.  If Lucy is all you say
there is...and If I can show you how Lucy is not a transitional form, then
would you admit you might be wrong? And I am not asking for "ALL
fossils"...just enough to conclude the THEORY to be true. All that I am
asking is for proof,,,,not a website.

See if you can answer each question if you'd like.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Electronicakid, a

Electronicakid, a question:

If I told you that there were some examples of long-term, macroscopic evolution, where you could go into a museum (...Well, a lot of museums) and see every single transitional form on display, and where there are clear divergences into different species, would that satisfy you?

If so (as you post would imply):

 

"Put your shoulder to the wheel,"

- Aesop

 

This is called the 'wheel'. It was one the first particularly complex machines man invented - though, by today's standards, the wheel (particularly primitive stone wheels, like the one above) are very simple.

 

 

This is the U.S.S. Nimitiz, an American Supercarrier. The aircaft on it's deck are F/A-18 Hornets. Taken as a collective whole, these ships are the most complex vehicles currently in operation.

 

How did we get from the wheel to the supercarrier? How did one very simple technology lead to such complex technology? The temptation on your part is going to be to intuitively say, 'Intelligent design, duh! This is our argument!' no doubt.

But you're mistaken.

Technology growth is an emergent process. Human beings serve as the mechanism for technology growth, just as our genes serve as the mechanism for biological growth; but 'intelligent design' is simply a misnomer. We did not just sit down one day and draft-up the blueprints for the Nimitz and start building. We took one technology, refined it, tested it's application again, refined it again, and repeated the process. Technology that proves undesirable for whatever reason stops growth (goes 'extinct', if you will), technology that gains demand recieves further development.

In a very real way, natural selection applies every bit as much to our machinery as it does to biology. Desirable machines are manufactured more - outdated machines cease production.

Evolution is a very intuitive process. Seeing it is just a matter of opening your eyes and using that frontal lobe of yours. If you want the most impeccable record of evolution available, it's just a matter of going to the nearest car museum or flipping through a magazine detailing the history of any one particular piece of technology.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Every fossil is a

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.  We do have thousands of fossils.

Next question?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
First, it seems as though

First, it seems as though he/she does not know the difference between theory and scientific theory. I can only suggest to him/her to refer to the mountains and mountains of resources that is available to us, to understand the difference between the two. Until then, this person will continue to have a hard time with this whole evolution thing. That or just another poor attempt at the symantics game.

I'm not a scientist, but, I do have the ability to read and think that I have a decent understand of reading comprehension and can only answer your "questions" in laymans terms.

 

Electronicakid7@aol.com wrote:

 

So, you argue that Australopithecus afarensis aka lucy should be sufficient
to conclude and show that Macro-evolution is correct?

Who is the "You" you speak of? From my limited understanding of macro/micro evolution: Evolution happens regardless of Lucy or Linus, Snoopy or Woodstock. Your question has the foul stench of creationist symantics.

 

Quote:
What do you think about this statements?"Shouldn't we have thousands of examples of
Macro-evolution at this point..meaning transitional forms from one species
to another? And shouldn't we have significant numbers of transitional
fossils and bones all over the place?  If the theory its true then it takes
billions of years for species to evolved to another species....Is that
taking place now?? Because if its true then we should be constantly
evolving to a different species as we speak!"
Your statements seem to be more like questions...Again, you sound like you are playing the symantic game with macro/micro evolution. I'm sure with a little detective work on your part, you could probably find out the answer yourself. But, here's a Wiki link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils   What is your definition of significant? I don't know how many there are, but, there are a quite a few examples of transitiional fossils that exist. However, the main problem with your question about them being all over the place, shows me that you have completely ignored geology or you have no clue how it works. "Life" has been around for over 3.5 billion years and there's been no scientific evidence that it has stopped evolving. WE are still homo sapiens sapiens and as far as I know, are the only sub species left of the homo sapiens line. So, I'm not sure that we can evolve into a different species other than a different sub species of homo sapiens. Maybe if we all just went the Creationist way, in the future there could be homo sapiens stupidiens?

Quote:
Darwin stated that evolution would be proved based upon the assumption that transitional forms would be
discovered.  You can check out the origin of species for that claim.  So,
since you know what natural selection means and you know that fossils
support transitions, all I am asking is for proof.
Now, this is a statement. Natural selection (aka, survival of the fittest) I'm not sure prooves transitional fossils. I think what supports proof of transitional fossils is the fossils themselves, which do exist. See Wiki link above...

Quote:
If Lucy is all you say there is...and If I can show you how Lucy is not a transitional form, then
would you admit you might be wrong?
Again, who is the "You" you refer to? What do you mean "Lucy is all you say there is"? All there is to what? You really need to be more specific for an answer to this, plus who is saying that Lucy is a 'transitional form'?

Quote:
And I am not asking for "ALL fossils"...just enough to conclude the THEORY to be true. All that I am
asking is for proof,,,,not a website.
Again to the original problem, it is clear that you do not understand or you refuse to understand the difference between a THEORY and scientific theory. I think once you understand the differences between the two, you may just end up answering a lot of your own questions. Of course you are not asking for ALL fossils right now, then when you do see there are indeed transitional fossils, I'm sure your 'argument' will digress into the GAPS argument. As for not wanting a website, sorry, I can't send books over teh innernets, so my Wiki link will have to suffice and a simple Amazon.com search on your part will probably give you a list of reading material you can order go to your local library and check out.

Quote:
See if you can answer each question if you'd like.

Given the way you 'asked' your quesitons, I find it very difficult to give you the answers you want to hear. I'm sure there are people here that have much more expertise than myself and could explain it in more scientific terms than me and hopefully they can correct any of my misunderstandings/mistakes, which I am OPEN minded enough to take as constructive critisism and revise my understanding.