Need answer for a creationist regarding current transitional creatures....

[grumpy old fart]

Here's the way he (and may creationists) puts it:

"So, my standard question is: please show me a fish with real legs (not strong fins) or a lizard with feathers or something else equally obviously a transitional creature".

Can anyone give me a pithy response?

[hatrack]

1. Ever hear of the mudskipper from SE Asia?

How about the coelecanth - the lobed-fin "living fossil" of the Indian Ocean?

[jrw14125]

6. here's some more...

Archaeopteryx - most widely known
Eusthenopteron
Seymouria
Probelesedon
Massetognathus
Probainognathus
Pakicetus inachus
Ambulocetus natans
Rodhocetus kasrani

I'm sure google will turn up more. But, I should warn you, creationists don't really like "facts." You're probably wasting your time, but godspeed!

[jrw14125]

2. tell him to show you a miracle - any miracle will do.

[sui generis]

4. ramen to that!

praise the noodles and pass the collander.

[Up2Late]

16. Another one that always stumps them is, ask them...

...where Cain's wife came from?

If you read Genesis, there is Adam and Eve, then they have Cain (boy) and Able (also a boy). Cain kills Able (one live boy, one dead boy).

Then read the next chapter of Genesis, and all of a sudden, Cain has a wife and there are people in a near by town???:shrug: :wtf:

That sounds like a HUGE "hole" in that "theory."

[displacedtexan]

3. Ahem.

Buy yourself a lizard, follow the scientific method as you study it 24/7, and get back to me in 6 million years.

[wryter2000]

5. How are you supposed to know what's a transition?

If you want to look at the fossil record, there are lots of transitions. If you don't know what a creature is evolving into currently, how are you to point at a transition creature?

Just because there are no more feathered lizards today doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Actually, I like the answer, "show me a miracle" better.

[BushOut06]

8. Actually if you look at dinosaurs and birds, you can find lots

As dinosaurs grew smaller and smaller, they began taking on more and more bird-like characteristics. There were even dinosaurs that had feather-like structures (maybe even feathers). There are many similiarities between small dinosaurs and today's birds.

[sui generis]

7. He's looking for another myth

articulated "legs" are fully evolved to dry land environments, as are creatures with gills evolved to aquatic environments. Apart from amphibians such as frogs and turtles there is no reason you would find a "fish" who is still a categorically a fish and has legs. All that would prove is that there is a god and he had an odd sense of humor.

I don't see them proposing Intelligent Humor as an "alternative" theory.

[johnaries]

9. Viruses. They mutate and evolve into new viruses every year.

What is the fear about avian flu? That it will evolve into a flu that can be passed from human to human.

[wryter2000]

10. Transitional creatures listed here

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm

Dinosaur to bird.

Please note that no one is saying that modern monitor lizards are evolving into birds. The correct thing to say is that modern birds evolved from reptilian dinosaurs. (Reptilian dinosaurs may be redundant. A dino expert will have to tell you that.)

[mrcheerful]

11. Please show me any evidence that anything was created by

god. Show me any evidence that the stories in the bible are based on fact and not myth. Religion is based on blind faith, Science is based on facts and evidence which expands as we learn more. Faith is shut off from expansion and there is no evidence to back one bible story, its just myth passed down first by word of mouth and hundreds of years later was written down as fact. Ask them how could a man live in the belly of a Whale and survive the stomach acids. Or, ask about the kangaroos being around after the fact of the so called great flood that covered the world. Then mention the fact that no kangaroo remains have ever been found in the middle east.

[oneighty]

12. The Gar Pike (Fish)

Depending upon PH/Oxygen level of the water will use gills to breathe or swim bladder/lungs to breathe. It is equally comfortable either way.

Transiting from water to land.

180

[China_cat]

13. Chickens

They still have scales on their legs.

[SnowGoose]

14. everything's transitional

Because there isn't a "ladder" of upward development toward a goal, there's just more or less likely to pass one's genes along. That's it.

But that's just me.

Look here, you'll find what you're looking for:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

(have fun)
From the site:
"I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned."

Contents
PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
Introduction:
Types of transitions
Why are there gaps?
Predictions of creationism & evolution
What's in this FAQ
Timescale
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds

PART 2 has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you're particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ.
Overview of the Cenozoic
Primates
Bats
Carnivores
Rodents
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
Elephants
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
Conclusion:
A bit of historical background
The major features of the fossil record
Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best?
The main point.
References

[Up2Late]

15. Not sure what the question is, but I'd show them this, it might help...

<http://deeptec.com/palmevolution/palmtree.html>

It shows how the modern Cell Phone/camera Phone/Blackbarry/PDA/Cell phone/organizer, etc. all evolved from the simple "Palm Pilot" in 1996.

<http://deeptec.com/palmevolution/palmtree.html>

[punpirate]

17. There are, as well, the pterosaurs...

... which were reptilian, had leathery wing coverings like pterodactyls, but also had a fur-like covering.

There is also the discovery in China in 1996 of Sinosauropteryx, a theropod reptile that had proto-feathers, long stringy fibers, probably used as insulation.

The best example I can think of, however, is the Archaeopteryx (which might not help your argument much--the creationists have continued to consider it a full bird, while ignoring the fact that the skull is reptilian and has socketed teeth, and it does not have a breastbone suitable for flight), and its possible precursors, Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, which had evidence of feathers, but were not capable of flight.

Chances are that whatever organism, fossil or otherwise, you propose as a transitional creature, you're going to get an argument or a denial, because none will be acceptable to the creationist. Proof of it is impossible for them. In the case of Archaeopteryx, for example, it was found only years after the publication of Origin of the Species and there were at least six examples located. Two of those were misidentified as theropod fossils for decades--principally because of the skull. One, obtained by the British Museum which had evidence of fossil feather imprints underneath the fossilized bones, was declared a fake by the creationists, saying that the feather imprints were added later with pressed powdered limestone, and yet the British Museum did a series of tests on it and found that the limestone in which the bones were found was contiguous with that of the feather imprints, and that internal cracks in the limestone of each strata matched. It didn't convince the creationists--they simply carried on with their assertion.

Cheers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. How about us?

We are not naturally bipedal. It is something that has evolved over the past couple million years, and not very well as is evidenced by the back problems so many of us have. Maybe in a few million more year we will become truely bipedal and our hips and spines will have fully adapted to bipedalism, without having to resort to chiropractors.

[grumpy old fart]

19. Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

For what it's worth, I already know, and have responded to creaton boy, about the overwhelming data regarding transitional fossils. This question just had to do with the "current" transitional forms. Ya'll have helped me to remember the simple and powerful answers out there. Thanks.

[Odin2005]

20. There are tons of transitional forms.

Archeopteryx was baically a flying dromeosaur ("raptor").
Acanthostega was a lob-fined fish with fingers usied to walk in shallow, reedy water.
In the time period between 300,000 and 200,000 Homo heidelbergensis evolved quite smoothly into Neandertals is Europe and into us in Africa.
The data for invertebrates and protists could fill libraries.

[rman]

21. I think the creationist is not describing a transitional creature

"a fish with real legs, not strong fins" - but i.e. no lungs?
That is a mockery of evolution.

If i were you i'd first check up on the definition of "transitional creature".

[eppur_se_muova]

22. Lots of good answers on this thread. It just goes to show...

that people here understand better than creationists that the version of evolution picked up from the popular press is the "cartoon" version...much oversimplified. That's the version ID folks like to argue against. Too bad for them it's only a straw man.

Basically, most species are transitional. "Living fossils" are the exception, not the rule, that's why the term was invented. But big changes like fish/lizard or lizard/bird take place very gradually, in small steps, not in a single dramatic leap (the cartoon version). Again, dramatic changes are *exceptional*. And you can't spot a transition until you've seen the "before & after", which makes it hard to spot a gradual transition in progress.

Although I would point out a couple of glaring omissions. The fish/lizard transitional form would be a lungfish (3 or 4 species alive today), then an amphibian. Creaton boy -- or did you mean creatin boy? -- forgot an entire phylum there. There is a vast mountain of evidence supporting evolutionary change, most of it fossil evidence, since far more species are extinct than alive. There is zero *unambiguous* evidence for alternative theories, and none for ID (which is an opinion, not a "theory" in the proper usage of that term).

On edit, I note his tactic: "...equally obviously a transitional creature". By what right is he entitled to an OBVIOUS example? If we were to believe only those things which are "obvious" we'd still be back in the dark ages. Who gave these clowns the right to frame the debate and dictate the acceptable form of evidence? Nobody. Don't give it to them. Don't let them get away with this tactic. It has only to do with *combative* argument, not argument aimed at getting to the truth.

[Dogmudgeon]

23. Ask him what kind of creature he'd accept as evidence

There's always a way to use sophistry to prove/disprove, attack, or "debunk" anything you want to. But when there's a specific criterion to be met, it narrows the argument to specifics, and keeps each side honest.

Well, in theory, anyway.

Creationists are like most fanatics: They won't accept ANYTHING. They say they do, and that they are perfectly logical, rational people, but it just ain't true. Therein lies the difference.

Scientists occasionally do the same thing, but reputation and/or funding is usually on the line, and it's a shame. Nobody likes to lose their argument, but it's a mania for some people. There are some "Net Loons" who have carried on decade-long arguments consisting of 20-30k of posts every day.

Creationism isn't about science, nor is it about religion. It's about POWER. And a lot of "Fundagelicals" lust after Power but call it Jesus. Theologians for years have made the point that there is nothing wrong with accepting evolution as the explanation for the development of life on this planet, even fundamentalists and Calvinists. The particular branch of American protestant extremist religion has just decided to use evolution/creation as one of their "totems". All they have done is to embarass themselves, debase the Christian ethical message, and waste a lot of time.

--p!

[Skinner]

24. Don't even bother.

First of all -- if your creationist friend is looking for a transitional creature that is *currently alive* then he doesn't understand evolution at all. If a particular creature really is a transition between two species, then it has long since gone extinct.

But if your friend is looking for an extinct so-called "transitional creature," you still shouldn't bother. A pithy answer might be "read a book, you moron."

The fossil record is filled with "transitional creatures" but whenever you point one out to a creationist, they will ask to see the transitional creatures between the transitional creatures. It's a pointless exercise. A creationist looks at a gap in the fossil record and says "show me a transitional creature" and when a transitional creature is provided, there are now two gaps that the creationist wants to see plugged. Essentially, each new transitional creature provided actually doubles the number of transitional creatures that creationists want to see.

Arguing with creationists is a complete waste of time. Among scientists there *IS NO DISAGREEMENT* that evolution occurred. Sure, there is some quibbling over minor points of the mechanism, but the fact that evolution occurred is obvious and not controversial. Creationists have capitalized on this whole BS "evolution is a theory not a fact" argument. One huge problem of this agument is that they are using the word "theory" inncorrectly, and making it sound like it's just some random speculation. But IMHO the even bigger problem with this argument is that it's just plain wrong: Evolution is a FACT. To quote a professor I had back in college: "Evolution is a fact; Natural Selection is a theory."

[hunter]

25. I see you've been in those trenches too.

Hard core creationists are a perverse self abusing vampire cult. I would not leave any small children with them. Certainly they do not come to the internet seeking truth, instead they come to suck the life out of everyone.

Garlic and silver crosses may be appropriate, scientific argument rarely is.


(Stolen from modernfreaktshirts. I have no idea who they are, but their front page is pretty cool.)

[MadAsHell]

26. Tree Frogs, many kinds of dogs, and pit vipers ...

but you won't win the argument because they will keep changing the definitions on you.

The very definition of evolution is that, at any point in time, the creatures are very nearly ideally suited to the enviroment in which they live. Therefore the glaring misfits that creationist are asking for don't exist.

However, to counter some of the main contentions of creationists I offer a couple of examples.

First of all the idea that evolution could not bring about the amazing variety of animals and plants I offer dogs. Every dog from the St Bernard to the hairless Chihuahua have come into being in the last 10,000 years with the pressure to modify and change provided not by a supernatural hand but by the continuous selection for breeding rights. Every shape and size of dog, every one is a wolf. They are all the same species genetically. The same arguments work for horses, pigs, cows and almost all domestiated animals.

The tree frog offers glimpse of a transitional species in that they have lost the webbed toes of their water bound cousins in favor of suction pads grasping toes. A completely different function from their obviously close relatives.

Very often the creationists will argue things as complicated as an eye can not function in a transition state. They will say "what good is half an eye?" The answer seems beyond the pale for them. But consider the "pit" in a pit viper. It is an infrared sensitive "patch" of skin that not all but only a "transitional" group of snakes have. Is it really that hard to imagine that through selection a small bead of mucus-like liquid might help focus and clarify the image in infrared if it could be trapped and held in place above the patch. Or that with time and selection success, the "pit" might become another "eye". It seems to me you could call that a transitional species as well.

[drm604]

27. Good luck with that.

If you present a creationist with something that fills a gap in the record he'll just see two more gaps.

[Barking Spider]

28. See TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html