Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms
A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.
The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.
Consider...
The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.
Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.
Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.
Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.
Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.
Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.
The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.
And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.
The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.
Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.
In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
You also forgot to include "Updated: 10/4/95" which appears at the bottom of the page. Really on top of things over there, eh?
But, that OK. I'll play the game.
The first two paragraphs of this site read:
A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.This is why I figure you didn't actually read my post. If you had, you would have seen with your own eyes just what these paragraphs claim couldn't and didn't happen.If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.
Go back to post #1066 and really look at the various skulls, and you will see for yourself the gradual changes (transitionals) which your creationist websites say dodn't exist.
Once there were only two fossils standing between eohippus and horse, now there are about twenty, occuring in a graded sequence, inside a graded geological sequence, predicted, and then found, and creationists are now happy to claim that every single pair of them have a "fossil gap" between them. The argument doesn't rest on continuous evidence, it rests on inductive reasoning about the fossils that we do see, to explain why they have so much in common, along what looks like a graded continuous spectrum of forms, chemistry, morphology and function. Do you reject the law of universal gravitation because there are large gaps between stars for which no evidence exists. Why are you so concerned about fossil gaps, when the deceitful, left-wing, athiestic stellar gaps are so much larger?
At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners.
The Cambrian explosion has been found to not be as explosive as thought. Many organisms found there did have precursors, but these were not discovered earlier because they were small and soft-bodied and thus not easily fossilized. A mass extinction event at this time allowed rapid radiation into multiple organisms. Due to the short duration of the radiation many early organisms would not be preserved.
Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors.
The fossil record for the origin of insects is very poor because insects are small and their exoskeletons easily biodegrade. They evolved in the Devonian. The earliest insects we have are primitive wingless hexapods related to springtails, bristeltails, the tiny diplurans, and others. Wings evolved rapidly in the Carboniferous, and their origin is uncertain.
Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
This will come as quite a surprise to the invertebrate chordates.
Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians.
This gap is rapidly being closed, only a few weeks ago a fossil fish with jointed forelimbs was reported, this is a transitional species to the evolution of tetrapods.
Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms
This is disgusting. Mammals evolved from Permian cynodonts through a series of protomammals.
The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record.
Not true.
And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.
Again not true. Dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. Two transitional species with intermediate traits are Herrerasaurus and Eoraptor.
The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.
I suppose you could say it is "controversial and enveloped in dispute" just because creationists don't like it. Among scientists it is agreed to be an actual organism transitional between reptiles and birds. The only debate there is whether birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs or if they split off before theropod dinosaurs diverged. All agree it is a transitional form.