Actually, you can find all the best ones here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Brace yourself for the disclaimer:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud

You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.

Thank you for your good will here, I genuinely appreciate it. It's one of the few acts of sincerity I've received on this board. Because of that, you've inspired me to present my defense. I will attempt to show that evolution is every bit as metaphysical as a belief in God. I will also attempt to answer the question you posed about compartmentalization. I should get to it later today. Thank you again.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..
You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.
The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.
For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?
As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feels strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.
Just understand that we also feel strongly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..

You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.

The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.

For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?

As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feel strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.

Just understand that we also feel strongly.

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..


>> ^shuac:
Nice one, BRM. I liked the Salty-Behe article, in particular this bit, which might apply to shinyblurry:

When asked for, “insights into how the mental compartmentalization which allows someone with a decent education to be a creationist works?” Behe had this to say:

After not questioning an issue for twenty years, hearing everyone and everything around you affirm it repeatedly, the brain becomes so used to looking at it in a certain way- as truth, in this example- that it can be very difficult or even nearly impossible for you to look at the issue without that desensitization in the back of your head assuring you that it’s true and can’t be disproved. I know someone has reached that point when literally nothing I can say will change their minds. [...] the idea will not require any detectable amount of proof after lying stagnant in the creationists’ head for so many years. They will look at it and it will appear absolutely normal and completely plausible. This is the damage that indoctrination causes.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What's less intelligent, having a discussion about what you believe or jumping into that discussion and filling it with baseless accusations and ad homs? I'll let rationality decide that one. Don't put words in my mouth and don't attempt explain what you think I know.
I'll give you an example of the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists claim that the wings of an ostrich are a vestigal part. Despite the fact that anyone with a brain could observe that ostriches use their wings for quite a number of things, evolutionists claim that its on its way out. Well, the oldest ostrich fossil we have is around 50 or 60 million years old. Guess what? Its exactly the same. So even though the ostrich wing is supposed to be a vestigal part, it hasn't changed in 60 million years. Yet, scientists claim that humans evolved in the last 4 to 5 million years. See anything wrong here? With the enlightening commentary you've already produced, im guessing no.
>> ^westy:
shinyblurry position is based on the fact that he believes the bible is the word of god , so everything he is saying is based on him "knowing" that god exists so the science has to be wrong until it matches up with his belief that the bible is the word of god.
If u have sum one that thinks the bible is the word of god how can you exspect them to have a resnable conversation on things that requre a deeper understanding of the scientific method or cognagtive skills to interpret information thats available .
you would not expect sum one that can only draw stick men to suddenly be able to draw a relastic portrate. Given that its always worth encouraging them and helping point them in the right direction and in the long run they might evan be able to teach you a thing or two.



"What's less intelligent, having a discussion about what you believe or jumping into that discussion and filling it with baseless accusations and ad homs?"

The exact point of what i said is specifically that until sum-one understands or can demonstrait a basic grasp of the foundations of what they are talking about , its incredibly likely that all conversation with them will be waisted until you address the key issue thats holding them back.

The problem is Evolution is very well explained and demonstrated but creationists will ether ignore the scentific evidence presented to them or they will keep pointing to places science is yet to explain and then use that as a justification for intelligent design.

The only reason creationists are so keen to hold onto intelligent design and have a bias for it ( despite all the evidence that points to evolution) is because they believe the bible (whatever book they believe in) is the word of god.

The other issue with talking to Creationists online is its near imposable to tell if they are trolling. Why don't you phone up the atheist exsperance they will get to the route of what you believe and explain why a belief in a specific god is unfounded far faster than I could and and I'm sure most people on this website could.

Contact them hear tv@atheist-community.org

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll give you an example of the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists claim that the wings of an ostrich are a vestigal part. Despite the fact that anyone with a brain could observe that ostriches use their wings for quite a number of things, evolutionists claim that its on its way out. Well, the oldest ostrich fossil we have is around 50 or 60 million years old. Guess what? Its exactly the same. So even though the ostrich wing is supposed to be a vestigal part, it hasn't changed in 60 million years. Yet, scientists claim that humans evolved in the last 4 to 5 million years. See anything wrong here? With the enlightening commentary you've already produced, im guessing no.


A quick google search will prove this wrong, the earliest ostrich-like fossil is more like 40 million years old, and more importantly, it's nothing like a modern ostrich, but a distant ancestor of ostriches, As with humans, like all other species, there is no one thing called ostriches, there are many subspecies, and even more extinct relatives and ancestral lineages


As for its vestigal wings, well, nobody is saying htey are useless, just that they are useless for FLYING. in other words, they are a perfect example of the very kind of evolution Behe says isnt possible in the video, namely that just because something seems useless for what it is usually used for (such as a non-flying wing or a non-rotating flagellum-like protein structure) it can have other uses for that animal or bacteria.

Humans didnt evolve in full over 4-5 million years, we, along with every other modern animal, have evolved for 3 billion years. We share ancestors with chimps, and these ancestors lived around 2 million years ago. And to us they would probably look rather chimp-like, they would be four-legged, tree-dwelling apes, some populations would stay behind in the forest, basically maintaining and perfecting the lifestyle, and some populations were gradually driven into more open savannah, where they developed bipedalism and eventually larger brains. But from evolutions perspective, the majority of the work (in creating us) had been long since done. 4 million years ago we were already great apes, and if an alien came to this planet they might say "oh they're basically still the same ape, larger brains and bipedal, maybe, but basically the same"

These differences make a massive difference to us, of course, because they separates us from everything else, but in the grand scheme of things, they may not be the evolutionary miracle we think they are.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

What's less intelligent, having a discussion about what you believe or jumping into that discussion and filling it with baseless accusations and ad homs? I'll let rationality decide that one. Don't put words in my mouth and don't attempt explain what you think I know.

I'll give you an example of the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists claim that the wings of an ostrich are a vestigal part. Despite the fact that anyone with a brain could observe that ostriches use their wings for quite a number of things, evolutionists claim that its on its way out. Well, the oldest ostrich fossil we have is around 50 or 60 million years old. Guess what? Its exactly the same. So even though the ostrich wing is supposed to be a vestigal part, it hasn't changed in 60 million years. Yet, scientists claim that humans evolved in the last 4 to 5 million years. See anything wrong here? With the enlightening commentary you've already produced, im guessing no.

>> ^westy:
shinyblurry position is based on the fact that he believes the bible is the word of god , so everything he is saying is based on him "knowing" that god exists so the science has to be wrong until it matches up with his belief that the bible is the word of god.
If u have sum one that thinks the bible is the word of god how can you exspect them to have a resnable conversation on things that requre a deeper understanding of the scientific method or cognagtive skills to interpret information thats available .
you would not expect sum one that can only draw stick men to suddenly be able to draw a relastic portrate. Given that its always worth encouraging them and helping point them in the right direction and in the long run they might evan be able to teach you a thing or two.

>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.


Oh god.

Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters

If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.

The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.

As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.
another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

Concerning your first paragraph:
Just from the top of my head the Appendix comes to mind, which seems to not serve any function.
Regardless, you still use the irreducible complexity argument, which I should believe enough evidence has been presented to you to show that it is incorrect.

Your 2. paragraph:
Google is a b***

Now I am growing tired of this game because we came full circle.
I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:

And your participation has been? You've offered no evidence for anything. If you aren't going to offer anything except "ur dum bcuz u dnt believe wut i do!!!", then please stay in the peanut gallery.
>> ^IronDwarf:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.


You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.



I've been following the discussion from the beginning. I can go back and quote all those who have already provided you with actual evidence, but that doesn't seem to be doing you any good. You don't want to hear it. It is a waste of time.

I'm sorry I got involved in the first place. Just reading this discussion is tiring; trying to argue with you is even more so.

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.

another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.
Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.
I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

And your participation has been? You've offered no evidence for anything. If you aren't going to offer anything except "ur dum bcuz u dnt believe wut i do!!!", then please stay in the peanut gallery.

>> ^IronDwarf:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.


You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.



You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.

What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.

>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.