If evolution is true, why has anyone ever discovered transitional fossils of evolving animals and humans?

‘ Transition form fossils ‘ is a concept conceived by people who cannot accept the theory of evolution.Every time a new fossil is discovered, they want the transition form fossils for something that came in between. All fossils are transition form fossils or there are none at all. Each generation is a fraction different from the generation before. These differences are stacking, but there will never be ‘ between species ‘. The whole concept of species is a gross digitization of an almost analogue change (for our perspective).

You have to see animal species as a snapshot and not as a movie through time.Fossils must also be seen as a snapshot, which is also very rare due to the need for special circumstances to fossilize.

Fossilizing is a gift, and especially exception.To be fossil you have to meet very specific requirements (such as having bones) and stay in a suitable environment: not every soil type is suitable or better: very few soil types and conditions are suitable. In short, fossils are the exception.

But more importantly: the theory of evolution is not dependent on fossils.That they are there is an entertaining add-on.

‘, ‘ There are constant ‘ transitional forms ‘ found.Many fossil hominids of which we descend and also of other species.
Since evolution rarely or never stands still, all life forms are now, including ourselves, or a dying species or a transitional form to something future-proof.

“,” Why do you think there are “never transitional fossils” discovered?You’d better have to throw all the superstitions there where it belongs: in the garbage of history, and do some research. The fossil file is conclusive. There are never any transitional fossils found because we have everything.

Look at it on the basis of our development of fertilization of the egg to our death.

We can take pictures in a certain time span, but choose one specific second in-for example-the transition from child to adult, we can only be legal, but not organic.

When we take a photo of someone every day, from birth to death, and that photo lives a long and healthy life without any accidents or operations, then we will never ever see differences between one photo and the next (on the hairstyle after , then).One photo and the following exhibits EXACTLY the same characteristics. If that person is now also ‘ ns bare ‘, you can even view those two pictures side by side and you cannot possibly tell which of the pictures is more recent. Is not going. Impossible. Unless there are outward or artificial indications such as piercings or tattoos or shaving that were not on the previous photograph. But you understand that is something else.

And if we now play those 30,000 photos (assuming a life of about 82 years) in succession, at a speed of 30 fpm, we get a film that does not flicker (because we observe at a speed of 22 -25 fpm).It will take 1000 seconds before it ends. So that’s a spacious quarter.
Even then you will hardly really perceive transitions.You will not be able to determine: “Oh, look! * NOW He/she suddenly became grey “or the like. Or “Oh, there suddenly appears a wrinkle!” or whatever.

And with evolution that is just the same.Evolution is NOT: Papa Wolf and Mama Wolf get a puppy and that puppy is miraculated a dog. That doesn’t work. Definitely not even. The wolf became less and less rough and dangerously looking, from generation to generation (each generation is similar to one photo from the above compare). And after Etttttttten generations look less and less, the animal looks sweet and friendly. And that’s the dog.

Another example: You have a whole mountain of sand.So it is “a lot of sand”. You dig with a spade a pit close by filling it with that sand. The mountain thus becomes smaller and smaller. But when is it no longer “much” sand, which is mountain? That too is not one particular moment.

The question you ask is logical in itself.We are looking for recognizable patterns. So we look at fragments in a movement. In an evolution. We cannot behold the whole evolution, because we have no film of it. But we can behold images of it. But we have so many of these images that we can move almost seamlessly from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens. And we can do that for so many animals, that it is pointless to doubt whether this is the same. There is no “missing link” that we still need to find. No serious scientist discusses it because it would be the same as the question: “Does the sun give us light and warmth, yes or no?” or “Should we breathe to live?”
They are pointless questions and many more meaningless discussions.Only superbelievers who are desperately clinging to completely outdated fiction are going to engage in nonsense discussions.

Evolution is a Bikkel hard fact and the fossil file is conclusive.Just accept it. Because even though you do not accept it, facts remain happy facts, even though you do not believe them. So you can better face them.

Because there are no transitional forms fossils.

Evolution is the name for the process by which living beings adapt to the changes in their environment.That change takes place first in behavior and then in appearance. Behavioural change is not recognizable in fossils, because the same physical structure can be used in different ways. As the throwing motion of the human arm is to be used to throw spears, but also to toss stones or to sway the camp Saxonia living to chop trees. For instance, you can run the fossils of a fish that has passed from swimming across the seabed to walk across the seabed not distinguishable in the transitional phase to run permanently over the seabed until far into the phase of permanent walking across the seabed. It is indeed the different application of the same mechanical parts, so there is no difference between the fossils. Only after several generations if something changes in the environment of the fish, which requires otherwise formed mechanical parts to survive, there will be a physical change. However, that change will be very subtle and as R soul indicates very dependent on the chance or the change is fossiliated.

The evolution is true.Life was not created in 6000 years.
The scientific evidence is so overwhelming that the probability that this has not happened is practically nil.
The counter-argument of the missing transitional forms is understandable.Finding a fossil (for example, a dino) is a good way to put it in context.
After all, every fossil found is a transitional form.
A dino eventually becomes a bird.
A A becomes a monkey and a monkey again a primacy etc.
So what the paleontologist sees is a photo album with snapshots of evolution and not a smooth film.
Was it true!
Finding a fossil is extremely special, because of the many vibrant life forms that have been there for the last 800 million years, only a fraction of a fraction of a group has been found as fossil.It is even possible that what we know from the fossil archive is a tip of the iceberg.
Remember that there have been great outlooks where life on our planet (almost) disappeared.
Nevertheless, the evolutionary biologist also cannot argue with dry eyes that the mechanisms of evolution are purely based on natural selection.

Take for example the spider.This insect makes, with a brain, that is smaller as a pinhead, a web that is ingeniously designed both mathematically, as well as mechanically and chemically.
The Predator tactics are brilliant anyway.
If Darwin were right, many unsuccessful cobwebs would have to be made by “transitional spiders” with the result that these spiders died and the spiders with genius cobwebs remained.Everyone can understand that this presentation of things is totally absurd and yet a spider web is made genius by a little creature that does not have the intellect to be able to do this. (I don’t think we’ll ever find a fossil “transition web”)

We are completely in the dark with many other examples of brilliant evolutionary development, not only in macroscopic biology, but also in the microscopic biology of molecules, biochemistry, cell processes and gene expression.

A philosophical vision might help.Apparently, there is a cosmic law that determines that as a life has arisen, something evolved from simple to complex and that by cooperation of simple processes, complex processes arise, which in turn generate even more complex processes.
Cells thus develop tissues, organs, bodies and eventually brains.
The total of the processes is more than the sum of it (holism).
In a sense, the cosmos and life are organizing themselves.
The cosmos, like us, has a spirit and a consciousness.

Why never?It happens continued

Leave a Reply