Transitionary Fossils

[XC(A)libur]

I'd like a list of all the transitionary fossils found and the evidence supporting evolution. I know there have been some found like the Tiktaalik, and an overall discovery of species that share the same systems and body parts. But I admit that I am pretty ignorant on this subject. My study is based around political science and anarcho-politics, almost never evolution. But after realizing some adversaries base their conception of politics on creationsim and the bible, I now find it necessary to do so. I would also like to hear from the ceationists and their arguments on this topic, if there are any.

Thank you.

 

[IBSpify]

I don't think you realise how long a list a complete list would be, i found an incomplete list, from 1980 here http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm but like i said, that date is over 20 years old which means it's nowhere near complete, you're likely to get better results if you limit your search to a specific set of Transitional fossils like amphibians to reptiles

Talk Origins as a very good Transitional fossil FAQ here, and it also has a large (though still incomplete) list of transitionals http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

 

[JacobEvans]

ALL species that have had their genetic code survive are transitional species.

 

[felixthecoach]

ALL species that have had their genetic code survive are transitional species.

I'm sure we're all aware of that. I think he's trying to debate with someone who wants to say there's no such thing as a transitional fossil from one distinct species to another.

++++++

For humans, there's a fairly good list of them. Look up Australopithecus for a good start.

 

[eqfan592]

I just hope whoever you're debating with isn't looking for a crockoduck.....

 

[orpiment99]

Wiki has a decent list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Unfortunately, some dates are missing, but the morphology is pretty clear. You might try some journal articles, but that might overwhelm whomever you're debating with (technical jargon and so forth).

 

[blinddesign]

For humans, there's a fairly good list of them. Look up Australopithecus for a good start.

but Australopithecus would really have been sick of us, debating how we're here, they're catching deer, we're catching viruses.

 

[felixthecoach]

but Australopithecus would really have been sick of us, debating how we're here, they're catching deer, we're catching viruses.

Say wha..??

 

[XC(A)libur]

Wiki has a decent list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Unfortunately, some dates are missing, but the morphology is pretty clear. You might try some journal articles, but that might overwhelm whomever you're debating with (technical jargon and so forth).

Thank you for the lists, this one especially. But when debating with a creationist, why not just show them these lists? Why try to convert by attacking their false faith in the bible instead of arguing from a point of science and reason? Show them why they are wrong in the most credible and obvious ways, it is much harder to argue about twisted logic with someone with twisted logic, as opposed to just showing them YOUR evidence.

 

[XC(A)libur]

ALL species that have had their genetic code survive are transitional species.

I am actually concerned with people who want evidence of transtionary fossils from one species to another. I heard there have been some found. The theory of the "millions and billions of fossils in the ground presupposed by evolution" which is a very common argument in creationists is entirely false, when you factor in the perfect geographical conditions needed for a fossil to be formed. But have there been such fossils found?

By the way genetic codes is enough for me, I am well aware of evolution but not much so transtionary fossils and their actual progression.

 

[Pulsar]

But when debating with a creationist, why not just show them these lists?

I've done that countless times. Their response is either
-a deafening silence. They run away, and come back later to debate someone else, starting all over again.
-attack the source: "if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger". So they respond that talkorigins and wikipedia are propaganda and fabricated lies from atheists, evolutionists and "the media".

Never underestimate wilful ignorance.

 

[XC(A)libur]

I've done that countless times. Their response is either
-a deafening silence. They run away, and come back later to debate someone else, starting all over again.
-attack the source: "if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger". So they respond that talkorigins and wikipedia are propaganda and fabricated lies from atheists, evolutionists and "the media".

Never underestimate wilful ignorance.

I have a question. Transitionary fossils as in transitionary traits from one species to another. Why is it that we never find fossils from transitions between species?

 

[GoodKat]

I have a question. Transitionary fossils as in transitionary traits from one species to another. Why is it that we never find fossils from transitions between species?

If you mean two currently existing species, it's because there are none. Two species will share a common ancestor, one will not be a descendant of the other. For example, humans and chimpanzees both evolved from the same species that is no longer alive, humans did not come from chimpanzees.

 

[Spase]

If you mean two currently existing species, it's because there are none. Two species will share a common ancestor, one will not be a descendant of the other. For example, humans and chimpanzees both evolved from the same species that is no longer alive, humans did not come from chimpanzees.

Well said.

This is an extremely common misconception about evolution and biology in general. Humans are not more evolved than chimps. we're not more evolved than bacteria either. Bacteria is very good at what it does and is extremely well adapted to various environments.

Creationists will try to point out that "simple" single celled organisms cannot just arise by chance... but in fairness these bacteria they call simple have undergone millions of times more generations than mammals because they have such a fast reproductive cycle by comparison. You can't consider some species less evolved... because everything's been evolving the same amount of time. If life is a tree all we have are the leaves and there is no transition or branch that connects two leaves in a tree.

Okay so lateral gene transfer is a branch connecting two leaves.. but.. that's different. And people who don't understand evolution won't usually ask about it.

GoodKat really said it all. I just had to add my random blathering.

 

[GoodKat]

You can't consider some species less evolved... because everything's been evolving the same amount of time.

Except for those dried up micro crustacean things that come back to life when you put them in water.

 

[Aught3]

bdelloid rotifers?

 

[XC(A)libur]

If you mean two currently existing species, it's because there are none. Two species will share a common ancestor, one will not be a descendant of the other. For example, humans and chimpanzees both evolved from the same species that is no longer alive, humans did not come from chimpanzees.

No I meant any two species. Most creationists I have met tell me they have never found any such fossils proving a transition from one to the other. I understood what he said about the tree of life as an example. But there can be no tree with leafs without the branches, and if we haven't found any transitionary fossils yet it sounds as if the evolutionary theory is just an idea without a foundation.

 

[IBSpify]

none to that degree of scutiny can possibly exist, for example, take canines, where is the trasition from the wolf (Canis lupus) to the house dog (Canis lupus familiaris) the two species are so close that any form of transitional would be impossible to differentiate between either of the two, so you could claim no transitional exists

 

[XC(A)libur]

none to that degree of scutiny can possibly exist, for example, take canines, where is the trasition from the wolf (Canis lupus) to the house dog (Canis lupus familiaris) the two species are so close that any form of transitional would be impossible to differentiate between either of the two, so you could claim no transitional exists

Point me in a few directions to learn more about this.

 

[blinddesign]

You can't consider some species less evolved... because everything's been evolving the same amount of time.

I think you can. If an entire polar bear population were dumped in the desert, they would be 'less evolved' to meet that environment than, say, a desert snake. That is because 'evolved-ness' is a measure of ability to survive and reproduce relative to the environment. Technically, it's still just as evolved (for the cold) but not in that situation.

"but Australopithecus would really have been sick of us, debating how we're here, they're catching deer, we're catching viruses."
Say wha..??

Barenaked Ladies- The History of Everything. The theme tune to 'The Big Bang Theory'.