Why Are There Sudden Jumps In Evolution Without Any Convincing Transitional Fossils?

Question

Before you go on a rant please read my question. First off let's take all religion aside and make this purely scientific. By bashing on me and telling me I'm dumb or stupid then by default you have already lost the argument by failing to answer my question. I don't want references but I want it in your own words since it is a simple question. I only say this because these were the only answers I have seem to got when I asked this question before. With that aside I have been doing some research online and yes I have been to many websites trying to find some convincing transitional fossils and I haven't seem to find any, here's why. I was told in evolution animals slowly evolve to adapt to their environments through natural selection. In every transitional fossil I have found there are always little jumps with no evidence as to how that jump happened? My question is why are there these jumps with no previous evidence of transition?

Answer 1

Darwin's answer was the extreme imperfection of the fossil record, which was a reasonable defense in his day.



Since then we have had more than 150 years of fairly intensive fossil hunting and the transitional fossils are still not there, except for a few disputed cases. Recently Tiktaalik was touted as the perfect transitional fossil; until tetrapod tracks dated millions of years earlier were found. Even granting the imperfection of the record we would expect to find the transitional fossils in at some cases, with gaps in others.



Jay Gould faced up to this problem and came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in an attempt to explain it. This theory might explain the absence in some cases but is unlikely to be a universal explanation, and it is not currently popular.



The best explanation is that the transitional fossils are missing because they never were. What we see is diversification within the original kinds with no transition between kinds.

Answer 2

You are disingenuous because you pose a question and insist on not being told the truth. There are two things to say. The fossils you claim don't exist do exist. No matter how many fossils are discovered creationists demand two things: even more fossils and basically fossils that don't exist because they comprehend not this elegant theory. Additionally, creationists ask for fossil evidence probably out of ignorance. They simply don't know that there is far better evidence. They're indoctrinated by their religious sects.



It doesn't upset me they won't accept evolution. I think it's dreadfully sad that they have such closed and blinkered minds. It would be so amazing if they could raise the consciousness. It is ironic that they believe their brains are God given yet they squander this wondrous computer.

Answer 3

If I have this straight, this is what you are asking:

"Why don't we see, in the fossil record, a series of fossils that records a significant change in body structure from one species to another, AND does it with sufficient resolution that the change from one stage in to the next is imperceptible?" (because if there is a perceptible change, that would be a "jump").



The answer is "Because it is unreasonable to expect that". The reasons are:

(1) Fossilisation is extremely rare. Think about it. We humans have been deliberately burying dead bodies for thousands of years, yet the vast majority of those bodies are gone, they are dust or have dissolved into the soil. And thousands of years is a blink of an eye in geological time.

(2) Many fossils get destroyed or rendered inaccessible by geological processes: erosion, deep burial, inundation, volcanic activity.

(3) We have only explored a tiny fraction of the Earth's sedimentary rocks.

(4) As Darwin realised when he visited the Galapagos, evolution happens most rapidly and dramatically in small, isolated populations, populations which by definition don't leave many fossils.

Answer 4

Because there aren't.



This is creationist fabrication.



We have plenty of transitional forms for all sorts of things.

The fossil record is naturally poor. Fossilisation takes very particular conditions to take place. Only a tiny proportion of all living things has ever been encased in stone forever. (Think about it; what happens to most leaves in the autumn? How many would you expect to be left after 10 million years?)



"Missing links" (not that scientists really bother with the term) basically occur every time a new find is made. There is a missing link before the find, and a missing link after the file. To satisfy the standard of proof of creationists, one would have to find every single representative of any one link up to mankind. Of course, that sets the standard of proof to "impossible".



in the meantime, we have found:



Mammalian reptiles.

Reptiles with feathers.

Fish with lungs (Some species still exist today)

A whole host of erect primates with growing cranial capacity and tools besides them.

Finger bones in whales.

Etc... Etc... Etc...



All the missing links you could possibly want are there.

Unless of course you argue in bad faith and keep demanding more missing links each time the question is scientifically answered.

Answer 5

Give a group of Creationists a complete Homo erectus fossil and ask them to classify it. About half will say, "human." The other half will say, "other Great Ape." Why? Because H erectus IS a transitional form in the human evolutionary linage. It exhibits both definitive human and definitive ape characteristics. So, they cannot decide if it is "human" or "ape." If Creationism was true, you would expect that test to be easy for them. H. erectus should either be 100% human or 100% ape, but it is not.



My words.



Here is the reference web site. H erectus is "Peking Man."



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html



Even Elolutionary Biologists have difficulty with and argue about how H erectus should be classified. It does not fit neatly into any category because it is clearly transitional (between) categories. But, there is no dispute that H erectus is in the human evolutionary linage.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Answer 6

At 490 questions so far on this site you are a "transitional" fossil in evolutionary terms as it seems as if you have nothing to do, meaning, a job, relationships, hobbies, community service, school, self study, etc. besides posting inane questions for, seemingly, entertainment. While there is a reason this site was created, and that is provide advice and counsel on most personal matters, not to have a philosophical discussion of academic proportions. As to this subject, watch online the series "Your inner fish" to gather the information you need a to evolution.

Answer 7

You seem to be supposing that every fossil that exists has been discovered. We've only recognized that fossils are the remnants of previous life for about 150 years. The better research that supports evolution is the research into DNA history.

Answer 8

I think the key word in your question is "convincing". Someone who has decided to believe a particular dogma is never going to be convinced by any amount of evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of transitional fossils, but none of them would be convincing to you.

Answer 9

you ask a question based on a religious assumption then say lets put religion aside



thats stupid - it also shows the closed mind of somebody who has already selected what they believe and aint interested in any answers that conflict with their "religious" beliefs



"By bashing on me and telling me I'm dumb or stupid then by default you have already lost the argument by failing to answer my question"



You do make me laugh

You ask a question based on a false premise then claim that somebody telling you its stupid has lost the argument cos they aint answered the question

(and by the way - it aint an argument)



I ask YOU

"when did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend/whoever?"

If you say this is a stupid then I will assume you are still beating them cos you aint answered MY question.



(there aint such thing as a "transitional fossil" - this is a creationist invention

every species is a species in its own right. If there is a fossil of that creature then THAT is a fossil of a creature in its own right.

looking for a "transitional fossil" is like asking for a "transitional number" between 1 and 2

its no good saying "1.5" is a transitional number, cos 1.5 is not a "number" between 1 and 2- its 2 numbers,1 and 5, that indicate a value between 1 and 2

The ONLY numbers we have are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

a "transitional number" would be something like say "@" where "@" has a value of 1.5

so the numbers would then be 0,1,@,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

But then a creationist would ask "where is the "transitional number" between @ and 2?"

And so they go on demanding "transitional numbers" ad-infinitum, when none exist and have NEVER existed)

Answer 10

Fossilization is itself a rare event, just because an animal dies doesn't mean it will create a fossil, typically you only see fossilization in large amounts after mass extinction events. this is one of those cases where you have to count yourself lucky with what you find, without worrying too much about what you didn't find.

Answer 11

1) ALL fossils are transitional fossils.

2) Not all organisms become fossils.

3) Evolution is observable even without fossils (fossil evidence is only part of the story).

Answer 12

Amen to your feeling of being bashed...I am a strict scientist and any discussion I propose that is outside Corporate Masonic Doctrine gets jumped upon. The Corporation has hyped junk science beginning with Einstein in order to keep secret the technologies the Corporation monopolizes to control the world. I am in favor of central control but believe that they can do their thing without junking up science. Get a copy of "Topobiology:..." about $5 used on ebay published around the late 1980's. The discussions of embryological development will assist your thinking about evolution which, to me is an obvious fact. Also, I don't see any evidence of God, nor that prayer has ever had any effect. The history of the Holy Romans should be examined and the nature of humans needing to belong to a group. Freemasonry and Religion have commonalities and the Global Corporate Conglomerate inventors are geniuses. They have a plan that is working.

Answer 13

Ok, fine, dismiss all of the transitions that have been found, what about the geological colmn? How come there's NEVER been found a human skeleton mixed in with dinosaurs?



Also, have you ever considered the platypus? A egg-laying, beaver-tailed, otter-footed, duck-billed, venomous mammal? Was god smoking crack when it designed the platypus? Or did it hiccup in the "creation" moment?

Answer 14

First off let's take all religion aside and make this purely scientific.



Wrong section.

Answer 15

Digestion, for one.

Answer 16

punctuated equilibrium

Answer 17

Because the missing link in the chain of evolution has been our Intelligent Designer we have named the God Yahweh.

Answer 18

The fact of the matter hun is that they don't exist. Carbon dating has even been proven to be inaccurate and false. And yet the so called scientists continue to lie. What they're supporting is not science but an ideology of secularism rooted in fear and hatred of God.

Answer 19

What would you expect when the evolution theory is based on a theory where all the evidence can fit in a coffin, with a bit of room to spare.