Shouldn't we have thousands of transitional fossils? [YOU RESPOND]
From: [email protected]
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.
- Login to post comments
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.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
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
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.