Sunday, January 23, 2011

There ARE transitional fossils

Creationists love to pretend there are no "transitional fossils." See for yourself. But they are lying. It's maddening.

From Answers in Genesis:
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms. has an extensive list of resources debunking this creationist nonsense. Follow the link. Some of the examples give way to even more documented examples, such as this link regarding dinosaurs and birds. Spend just a bit of time, and you can find all kinds of resources. Just search for any of the types, and you can find things like encyclopedia entries with illustrations, such as here.
When the creationists say there are no transitional fossils, they are lying. Or they are showcasing their utter ignorance.
Of course we can't find every single fossil that ever existed through all of time, but that seems to be what they want. Still, consider the expansive fossil record, and remember: this is more evidence than anyone requires them to produce for their fantasy storybook.


  1. "Of course we can't find every single fossil that ever existed through all of time, but that seems to be what they want. Still, consider the expansive fossil record, and remember: this is more evidence than anyone requires them to produce for their fantasy storybook."

    So in other words, you don't have any transitional fossils. You cannot produce a complete record so your logic is that because it appears to be more believable than a fantasy book you are in the right. You also have no knowledge of Biblical Archeology. Every character ever mentioned of in the Bible is a real, historical human being who once lived; archeological digs have already proven that. TIME magazine in fact praised Biblical Archeology for their fine work and accuracy to the Bible. Visit Time's website and type in "Biblical Archeology" to educate yourself on the evidence of your so-called fantasy. What Evolutionists are really saying is this: Because there appears to be no evidence of God to us, we accept Evolution without a complete fossil record.

    1. @Anonymous. No. That's not what he said. He said transitional fossils exist. Anyone with an IQ over 75 can do a little research and see the evidence. But science never claims to be completely infallible. Science simply states a theory based upon the state of the current evidence. And when that evidence becomes overwhelming, "theories" like the "theory of gravity" are considered fact. Anyone who disputes the "theory of gravity" today is considered a candidate for the loony bin. And evolution is quickly attaining that status. As far as archaeological proof that every person in the Bible is real? Really? Where is your archaeological proof of Adam and Eve? Where is your archeological proof of Noah and the Ark. The fantasy lies in the overwhelming need of mankind to hold onto superstitious beliefs in the form of religion in order to assuage their anxiety about their existence in an unknowable universe. But with science, we know and can learn much more about the universe we live in. We don't need religion as our pathetic security blanket.

    2. Actually there are archeological evidence for Noah's ark, and Eden actually exists in Ethiopia the country where the oldest human being has been found.

      Noah's Ark...

      Red Sea Chariots....

    3. No, what the article clearly says is that we don't have *every* transitional fossil. If you're going to claim we don't have *any*, please critique the multitude of transitional fossil referred to in the links, and provide a your analysis of *why* you don't agree that they are transitional fossils.

    4. Just because an Ark was found doesn't prove that it was in fact Noah's Ark, that's a jump to conclusions... I mean any Ark that is found that fits the time period could be seen as "Noah's Ark"

    5. Lol seriously there's archeology evidence of biblical figures? Since when? There isn't any evidence for that hell not only is there no archeological evidence there's no historical evidence of them either. Tell me if jesus and his apostles were so "miraculous" travelling all across the land performing these amazing deeds. While presenting profound evidence of a divine creator. Then why is there no historical account of these people? You think out of all the historical records that at least one of those historians maybe would've mentioned a guy that could walk on water. ...and by the way I took the time out to go to TIME's website to search biblical archeology, and what do you know it yielded..... 0 results. ��

    6. The ark hasn't been found. Turkish explorers said they may have found evidence of it on mt. ararat. Then evangelical christians came up there and was like ok hands off religious symbol it's ours. Then proceeded to keep anyone from actually discerning rather or not it was an ark. Then basically said yep this is it proof of our lord ..bits and pieces of wood on mt. ararat must be the ark.

    7. Uhhhhh there is plenty of historical accounts of Jesus other than the bible. And of his apostles.. Idk what u are think or who you have been listening too but yes there is..josephus, pliny, and tacitus,. Pliny and tacitus were Roman officals. Oh and this transitial stuff where are all the transitional living ones? NO WHERE!! And get outta here with these transitional fossils.. you guys are reaching hard.

  2. Beautiful banner at your site as well, I am reminded of some wall paintings by the Mexican artist, Diego Rivera, such as this one You browse more murals of his at

  3. If we found 17 T-Rex partial skeletons, we should have found 100,000 partial skeletons of T-Rex's ancestors.

    Unfortunately we found 17 partial T-Rex skeletons, and not 1 T-Rex with 16 fossils on their way to evolving to T-Rex.

    I think we need to look at this whole thing again.

    1. Look up the following:

  4. If the Earth is billions of years old, then there would be plenty of time for us to find many transition fossils, with hardly any gaps. Yet we still don't have this, why?

    I find it funny that so many people HAVE FAITH, not know as a fact, that evolution is how we came about. Charles Darwin, the man who made evolution popular, was a deranged Christian, angry at God and life because his daughter had died. So the best way to get back at God for doing this, was to debunk Christianity, he did not believe it himself! He had regrets about what he said, yet there are die-hard "scientists" trying to prove this fantasy. If only people could get a grip, there is no way your mind came by chance. Well any sensible person that is. And, if you believe this, then there is no hope for you, because when you die we go into nothingness. The sad thing is, if I'm right and your wrong, you, and all the people you have led astray, will go to Hell. Think about it. I mean we do not even know where are thoughts come from or what type of energy they are, but they are there. So think about it, evolution, with no hope, or Christianity, which promises everlasting life.

  5. If the fossil record contains the transitional evidence necessary to prove evolution, why did evolutionists develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium? It was developed clearly because of the lack of observable scientific evidence in the fossil record to support evolution, if macro evolution were true there would be a super abundance of evidence in the fossil record, even Darwin was troubled by the overwhelming lack of evidence in his era and blamed it on the incomplete uncovering of the fossil record, if he were alive today, given the mass hunt by evolutionists for fossil support and the immense lack thereof, even Darwin would have to admit that science has literally not unearthed support for his theory.

  6. Fossils are RARE it takes an organism dying and almost immediately being covered my minerals before it decays. Not only that but we have to find many different organisms of that certain specie's to put them together to make it complete. At the same time everything from seismic activity to landslides and floods and so on cam destroy those very rare select fossils. Yet we have still found many examples of transitional fossils like fishapods and frogamander but it's not even about transitional fossils really.We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

  7. Define 'proof.' In the strict sense, there is no proof of anything. You can't prove you're the person you think you are, and not a patient in a mental asylum having a hallucination.
    It's stupid to believe in an idea like that, but technically you can't PROVE it wrong.

    So let's use the common-language definition of proof. That is proof = such a large amount of supporting evidence that it would be perverse to doubt it.
    In that sense, yes, evolution has been proven. Every skeleton ever uncovered is a 'transitional form', you and I are transitional forms. It's wrong to think there are such things as half human - half ape, that's a fallacy that creationists come up with to try and convince people that evolution is wrong. Things like that don't exist, and we don't expect to find fossils of them. Organisms change slightly from generation to generation, you'll never find a fossil that's half one species and half another.
    If you want some more obvious examples of 'transitional forms' then look at a lungfish (fish that has lungs). Or a mudskipper (fish with feet). Or a bat (mammal with wings). Look at the skeleton of a dolphin, they have individual fingers with joints underneath those flippers. The skeleton of a snake has hip bones. A human skeleton has a tail (and some babies are born with it still protruding from the body.)
    And these are just animals alive TODAY that I can think of off the top of my head.

    1. WHAT!!!!!! You can't be serious. So what your saying is we just jumped from a fish to an ape to a human without any evolution . That is outrageous basically a self defeating statement. There would in betweens walking on this earth right now.

  8. So how do we know they are transitional fossils and not just species that have gone extinct over time? There are many different types of animals that are similar that are not the same.

  9. You will always find fossils that look similar and can be laid in a pattern that shows an evolutionary chain.. The problem with it is that we can do that with skulls of people who have died days apart. They obviously aren't transitions, they are simply similar.. you can take 50 skulls and line them up in a way that shows a slow transition even if they all died at the same time. If you find someone with a deformed skull, it makes it look dramatic.. But if there is a chain of them, we should be finding tons of them.. not just one. One generally means "deformed" "transitionals" are simply something that looks like something else, and they lay it out in a pattern that "looks transitional" I've been googling for two hours to find a transitional link. If someone has one, please link it. I'm literally trying to prove myself wrong here. any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

  10. looking at a transitional fossils doesnt support evolution in any way, as you can see, a fossil offers a great evidence that an organism has existed and died, in a fossil, you cant see it evolved, so therefore, logically, you cant say that fossils are evidence for evolution, maybe you could start looking at genetics first for you to see that genetics alone makes it impossible for an organism to evolve

    1. How does it not support evolution? Scientists can date and look at fossils and tell what sort of animal / species they should have been. For example the Tiktaalik roseae was dated to be about 375 million years old which was in the era known as the "Age of Fish", it was clearly a mix of a fish and tetrapod.