₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: That is why wikipedia is not always accurate.

You are not widely read on evolution and you couldnt see the mistake.

Keep showing your idiocy as you mentioned in the op

Which mistake, that you have not even been able to point out or say a word on?

Please you are a foolish waste of time that has been debunked, Olodo, Next!

Epic failure.

thehomer: And this is very much like you. I hope the brunch you had wasn't so heavy that it is still diverting blood to your GIT.
If the traits aren't observed in the ancestral or derivative groups, how does anyone know they're related? Go ahead and explain it.

You came accepting that you had little knowledge. I've told you that the two terms are similar, you disagree and show me a single line on Wikipedia that you'll notice has no citation. I also inform you that the way it is generally used by the experts is how I'm using it and that google will clearly demonstrate this but you refuse to budge from the uncited line that I've shown you in various ways to make no sense.

My friend, I don't know why you are getting excited. Its simple really. Of course the terms are generally similar. But there remains a fine distinction - and that remains the question in the OP. If you noticed, I already crafted the OP in such a way as to convey what I was looking for. Namely fossils that show features that make it evident that indeed fish did evolve to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, bird to mammal, and so on. This is a very simple question which no amount of attempts to render "intermediate" as transitional" will obviate - even if successful.

So the words regardless, the fossils being sought are obvious. Please call them what you please. Heck, even call them middle, or evolving or worever. The fact is that I am looking for fossils between the major groups of creatures. Crying about the similarity between the words 'intermediate' and transitional' will only show that you have no such fossils to show - even where I have shown you a difference.

Just fetch me the fossils I indicated gaps for in the OP, simple.

Other than that, all you have shown here is just rambling.

thehomer: Actually, evolution doesn't require that all genetic mutations be expressed as distinct phenotypes like I said, most mutations are "silent". e.g a man is genetically distinct from his father yet their bones will generally look alike despite their genetic differences. How much more when it comes to fossils millions of years old?

And do you assert this to be an instance of mutation in the evolutionary context?

thehomer: This is a trivial matter. Have you tried looking up the term "intermediate fossil" like I said? How can they find species with no traits observed in some ancestral group?

This is unlike you. Confess, you are having something to drink, or you are at a party or something? ? ? ?

I repeat, and READ AGAIN: IT DOES NOT SAY "NO TRAITS! ! !"

It says "species with a host of traits not observed in the ancestral or derivative groups" That simply means species with some new traits that were not previously seen in ancestral or derivative groups ! ! !

Haba now?

@Plaetton -

Let's use the summary of the basic evolutionary timeline for discussion -

The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,

2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),

1 billion years of multicellular life,

600 million years of simple animals,

570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),

550 million years of complex animals,

500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,

475 million years of land plants,

400 million years of insects and seeds,

360 million years of amphibians,

300 million years of reptiles,

200 million years of mammals,

150 million years of birds,

130 million years of flowers,

65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,

200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,

25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.

13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.

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

Observe any oddities, or grossly unlikely timeframes?

davidylan: I struggle with this... because quite clearly, evolution required genetic mutations to be expressed as distinct phenotypes. How is it possible then to argue that the lack of intermediate species is down to mutations that could only be seen in the genes?

I asked him this question in different words and he has not addressed it. Quite a dumb-founding excuse, if you ask me!

I said -

You surely cannot rely on recovery of genes alone as your mere excuse? Not even with the rarity of fossilization can you proffer these VERY weak excuses. In the case of the latter, the the share quantum of creatures over millenia puts your excuse to the lie. In the case of the former, since when has visual evidence of fossil shapes become useless to you and the theory? Was the entire theory not built and sustained on such visuals' re - fossils?

thehomer: That distinction makes no sense. Try looking up the term "intermediate fossils" somewhere else.

Talking about fossils with no traits connected to either their ancestors or descendants is like talking about a person who bears no traits connected to their biological parents or offspring.

It implies that the person magically sprung up with no connection and that is contrary to the theory of evolution.

WRONG SIR: Apparently, you are not reading. Surprising for you, but normal for your "gbammist" above.

It does not say "no traits". That would be impossible. It speaks of where the new traits are not observed to come from the ancestral group!

The exact words again - "while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

So its simple: it does not say, no traits. It refers to species with traits that are not observed in the supposed ancestral groups at all. New traits.

So answer, sir? ? ? ?

plaetton: I dont know what you mean by the above.
But you did not answer my questions. If you come out to make bold statements on a scientific matter, you have to show the math first before you make known your conclusions. In this case, you are merely voicing your emotional opposition to accepted scientific notions.

4.7 billions years is enough time for the earth to have sufficiently cooled to support what we know as life. 4.7 years of cosmic radiations, solar storms, terrestial storms, earthquakes, continental drifts, etc to cause mutations and and infinite genetic variations of both plant and animal life.

Infinite, you say? How presumptuous! Anyway, I posted the timeline of evolution for the earth up there for you right after my post, maybe you should scrutinize it.

But before you do so, please let us agree on a simple principle.

Note carefully the following:

If we were to agree that the probability of a given sequence of events, is 1 in say, 1 billion days.

And that sequence of events requires 1 billion precise mutations and incidents of chance to occur as a full sequence once in 1 billion days.

Now let us say that we are given a timeframe for a venue for such an event to occur.

Let us say that that venue exists for only 1 day so far.

Would you agree, given the foregoing analogy, that it would be statistically improbable to say that the 1 day could support the occurrence of the full sequence of events?

I ask this question (and I hope you appreciate it) in order to see if you understand the fundamental reasoning behind my assertion that the age of the earth does not support the full spectrum of evolution. If you understand the analogy, you should see the point already - that is, once you take on board the period required for each instance of relevant macro evolution.

Finally, please note that although this problem became apparent to me without reference, I find that it is a huge issue which has been debated by even evolutionary scientists. Some have come to their own conclusions. What do you say?

Logicboy03: Answer the damn question. Stop Anonynizing!

Debunked. This is a foolish waste of time.

Plaetton:

Have a look at the timeline.

Date Event
2500 Ma Great Oxidation Event led by Cyanobacteria's oxygenic photosynthesis.[21] Commencement of plate tectonics with old marine crust dense enough to subduct.[11]
2000 Ma Diversification and expansion of acritarchs.[22]
By 1850 Ma Eukaryotic cells appear. Eukaryotes contain membrane-bound organelles with diverse functions, probably derived from prokaryotes engulfing each other via phagocytosis. (See Endosymbiosis). The appearance of red beds show that an oxidising atmosphere had been produced. Incentives now favoured the spread of eukaryotic life.[23][24][25]
1400 Ma Great increase in stromatolite diversity.
By 1200 Ma Sexual reproduction first appears, increasing the rate of evolution.[26]
1200 Ma Simple multicellular organisms evolve, mostly consisting of cell colonies of limited complexity. First multicellular red algae evolve
1100 Ma Earliest dinoflagellates
1000 Ma First vaucherian algae (ex: Palaeovaucheria)
750 Ma First protozoa (ex: Melanocyrillium)
850–630 Ma A global glaciation may have occurred.[27][28] Opinion is divided on whether it increased or decreased biodiversity or the rate of evolution.[29][30][31]
580–542 Ma The Ediacaran biota represent the first large, complex multicellular organisms - although their affinities remain a subject of debate.[32]
580–500 Ma Most modern phyla of animals begin to appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion.[33][34]
580–540 Ma The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation of an ozone layer.[35] This blocks ultraviolet radiation, permitting the colonisation of the land.[35]
560 Ma Earliest fungi
550 Ma First fossil evidence for ctenophora (comb-jellies), porifera (sponges), and anthozoa (corals & anemones)

More details here -

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

Can you have a look at this and tell me if it makes any sense to you in terms of that which is required in terms of time, for these events to have occurred ALL within the time frame referred to?

Can you, in your analysis of same, please refer to the mathematical probabilities of the evolution of such life, and then compare same to the age of the earth?

plaetton: [/b]

On what scientific grounds are you standing to make the bolded statement? Is this your own uninformed opinion, or one backed with scientific facts?

Have you attended to the math of the matter? Please have a look first at that.

Can you do that and then revert to me?

thehomer: As far as I know, the term "transitional fossil" is synonymous with "intermediate fossil" so what you have in bold there doesn't really look right to me. So you can go through the information on that page. It shows you different transitional fossils.

No sir, the distinction is quite finely made in that link already. And that distinction goes to the pith of the gaps that I placed in my OP for which I asked for intermediate fossils.

Can you point me to any?

@ Ooman.

Thank you for your attempt (it is to be noted in your favour as against those who neither can nor will address anything substantive). Regrettably, nothing you have written addresses the very simple question I have asked in the OP - namely - about Intermediate Fossils. What you have done is simply to rehash basic evolutionary principles for us, which we do not need.

ooman: The superficial theme in nature is that nature, with all its "designs" must be controlled by some sort of intelligence. Indeed, some scientist held this view, until more light was shed about the structure of DNA.

And DNA itself evinces no special design?

This is all too funny. Your analogy is comparable to saying that defects in already highly developed systems, and the changes that such defects bring, therefore show that the highly developed system in the first place required no design.

The DNA revealed that life forms can transit and YES do transit from one form to another without the "compulsory" need of control.

Your understanding of DNA sir, is suspect. What is DNA, is not control itself already?

This change is termed mutation - It is inherent in the nature of DNA to make mistakes. Most of this mistakes are harmful, however, some are beneficial, leading to a new protein function. More of this change accumulate leading to new species - This process is termed Micro evolution.

Study also revealed that mistakes such as non disjunction of chromosomes can also lead to a "quick" evolution of new species from an ancestral one. RECENT Example include xenopus leavis, tympanoctomys etc - This type of evolution is called Macro Evolution, meaning large change at once in contrast to Micro evolution that needs time.

Also there are divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. Indeed, evolution is so broad to be an abstract.

None of this addresses anything. In fact, from your surmise, you should be able to show us millions and even billions of examples of intermediate fossils, arising from macro evolution, no?

Now let me address your "Premises". Many thanks for them.

first premise against intelligence influence - Mistakes are inherent nature of DNA - An omnipotent intelligence cannot /is too perfect to make mistakes. Contention against it is that we have been able to make INFALLIBLE DNA.

Watch your step son. Who has said anything here about perfection or omnipotence? Please dont wax religious on me. As such, this excuse fails. I do not advance any such thing to you as perfection or omnipotence in this matter. In fact, if you were keen, careful and thorough enough, you would realize that I do not even advance God to you in this equation. God, in my view, stands far too transcendent even for the matter of physical evolution to concern God. Please do not assume that every reference to intelligent input is a reference to God. Thank you.

Second premise - Morphologically, there is superficially, not to talk of thorough scrutiny, NO sign of intelligence in control of nature. Everyone will agree that IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST IS THE RULE OF THE GAME.

Survival of the fittest is no doubt true, but to say that there is no sign of intelligence in nature is more than stretching things. In fact, it might suggest that there is no intelligence in everything we are thinking and writing right now, no? For we are within nature, no? Careful buddy.

I will stop here for now, make sure you understand and take your questions

I hope I have understood you kind sir, and many thanks for your time and responses.

I am, however, constrained to repeat the question in my OP. For this primary school class sir, you are yet to show me a single intemrediate fossil between the major branches of creatures - given that in theory, they evolved one from another, with millions going extinct along the way. Where are they, kind sir?

@ thehomer -

Please note that I made slight addittions to my last revert to you.

Further, here is the link I earlier quoted, since you ask about transitional and intermediate fossils.

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species 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.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

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

Now where are the intermediate fossils I asked about in my OP please?

thehomer: The contrast between the theory of evolution and intelligent design is that one is a scientific theory while the other isn't.

I did not ask for the contrast: I merely stated that I do not see the notions in either to be mutually exclusive. You are surely aware that even Darwin did not see any such mutual exclusivity when he propounded the theory?

Why do you not accept those two claims you presented above?

Because with regard to the first claim there is abundant evidence of features that cannot be explained by the mechanics of the theory of evolution by themselves alone, and with regard to the 2nd claim, the age of the earth simply does not support the amount of mutations and the time therein required to arrive at what we have today.

Why not? Is it that you simply find it incredulous?

Yes, that too, sir.

Firstly, unicellular and multicellular organisms don't really fossilize well.
Secondly, fossilization is rare. Though we do have a staggering collection of fossils
Thirdly, a lot of those mutations are genetic and as you know we're yet to recover genes from fossils millions of years old.

None of this addresses the absence of useful intermediate fossils.

You surely cannot rely on recovery of genes alone as your mere excuse? Not even with the rarity of fossilization can you proffer these VERY weak excuses. In the case of the latter, the the share quantum of creatures over millenia puts your excuse to the lie. In the case of the former, since when has visual evidence of fossil shapes become useless to you and the theory? Was the entire theory not built and sustained on such visuals' re - fossils?

Now my own questions, what do you think an intermediate fossil (transitional fossil) is?
Do you think that man was the intention of evolution?

I already quoted the separate definitions from one of the links above.

As to your second question, no: life generally is, not man alone.

Oya, let me kick it off for you teachers. What are your comments on this transitional fossil.

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

Later now!

alfaman2: Hollow Sight needs focus.

Like the sort of focus you have failed to give me so far?

For heavens sake there are FAMOUS suggestions for intermediate species which NONE of you have mentioned so far!

Abi you know that those suggestions have problems?

Bed time now!

ooman: deepsight, i need to know, shall we focus on fossils or on randomness of nature?

Let us make the question as follows - does the fossil record support the ideas advanced by the theory of evolution as to how evolution occurred? If so, lets start with intermediate fossils please.

Night cap now.

Logicboy03: Brunch and lunch are not the same thing. I dont know why some people like to feel with western cultures they dont understand.

Truly, you are a clown

Silly boy. And who does not know this? ? ? ? Of course it was since intended as brunch but I have been wasting my time here with you lot and now must be lunch. Whatever. I guess it has mutated or evolved. Olodo.

If you have no quality to give me, we cant even step up the game. I guess I have to wait for thehomer or others and the lunch will evolve to dinner.

[size=16pt]And let me sound a warning here loud and clear before I go off to my brunch. No one should dare post pics that they are not sure of. I say this because of the several cases of so called ape fossils that have been found to be 90 per cent artistic reconstruction and about 10 per cent bone and teeth only. [/size]

Teachers; I am giving you the space: teach well!

I am sorry to say at this point: please do not take this as arrogance. This is a subject I have read widely on since I was a child. I am shocked that the species that you should actually have mentioned are featuring nowhere in your posts so far! Or is it because you are aware of the critiques?

Lunch now!

ooman: to begin with, here are currently found transitions between Apes that led to the great ape (us)

i will post some lecture on randomness now!

WRONG: THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WERE ASKED FOR, KIND TEACHER.

AS FAR AS SCIENTIFIC INDEXING IS CONCERNED, HUMANS ARE A TYPE OF APE.

SO SHOWING ME DIFFERENT TYPES OF APE ALONE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT SHOW AN INTERMEDIATE SPECIE OF THE NATURE I REQUESTED.

THIS IS WHY I SIMPLIFIED THIS CLASS IN THE WAY I DID - DO NOT MISS IT - I NEED FOSSILS, SAY, BETWEEN BIRD AND MAMMAL?

WHY IS SUCH A FOSSIL IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND OR PRODUCE?

[Hint: You guys are not even trying. I know very well of mooted fossils for such, read them all even when I was 12 - 13, for Gods sake. They have all been discredited. I am giving you space. Try better please!]

alfaman2: This is a new theory unfolding before us: God created evolution.

Not so new sir: if you must know, Darwin himself thought so, certainly at some point; and most scientists during the 20th century also thought that there was direction and purpose behind the observed process. Its not new, and not unique to me or created by me.

ooman: Deepsight, since you already avow to believe evolutionary theory but disbelieve in randomness of nature but rather believe in intelligence control of randomness, i will not therefore start afresh with you. Also, i do not really think that you need much evidence of evolution anymore since you have stated that you believe something must always evolve.

The point, therefore, is not in proving that "things" evolve but in proving that nature is totally uncontrolled by any intelligence. Is this the stance you take? If yes, then you are a theistic evolutionist, typical of a deist?

Pls answer the above question so i may know where to begin with you, an idi.ot student!

Yes teacher, ya got that right, but please be careful about the bold word above - "theory" - for that would suggest I accept the theory as advanced. Not so: I accept evolution - but the theory as advanced has problems which disclose, in my view, that it was rather a guided process.

So proceed.

alfaman2: Deep Sight. What you are doing is asking a straw man question. Asking us to describe something that doesn't exist. Evolution is not linear like you assume: Unicellular[____] Basic Multi-cellulars [______] Fish [________] Amphibian [___________] Reptile [_______] Bird [_______] Mammal.

No, man. It doesn't work like that. It works like tree and branches. The link between two species is another independent ancestral species. Like the link between you and your cousin is your grandfather/grandmother.

You get it?

Get facts firsts and ask questions based on facts.

alfaman2: Let me keep educating you and also for the sake of other people who want to learn what evolution is all about.

The bolded is the simple mistake even so called scientists make when trying to explain evolution. Let me repeat it: fish DID NOT evolve to reptiles and reptiles DID NOT evolve to birds and birds DID NOT evolve to mammals.

Other common ancestors evolved into all you are seeing today. It is not linear. There are many factors. Get it?

Of course, but in the process of so evolving all the intermediate species would have fossils everywhere, no?

Would they all dissapear - when trillions and trillions of such fossils must have existed?

Mind you, I hope you are not, like logicboy, assuming I am arguing against evolution?

I am arguing for my own view of directed as opposed to unguided evolution.

So please, I am still waiting for those intermediate fossils.

This is just the first of many questions I have for this class of teachers. Don't fall my hand. Remember I am an Id.iot. Help me. Where are they?

Logicboy03: You believe in evolution not accept it?

What is the problem here. You neither think nor read. Please go and read what I wrote in my OP. I believe that cars are made in a factory may not necessarily mean that I agree that the factory is not a GUIDED production chain. Honestly, I cannot say more.

You say you believe in evolution and you know that fossils are hard to find. Yet you complain about intermediate fossils and claim that evolution has a problem with fossils.

Because, son, directionless evolution would disclose the intermediate fossils in abundance. Directed evolution on the other had may very well not! Swallow that?

You truly are an idi.ot

Many thanks. I don't know whats itching you. And I am not sure I have the level of youthful exuberance you still have, such as to have allowed me to waste my time shouting. I will wait for people who can take their time to read.

thehomer, please come and educate me on the thread "Evolution for Id.iots" which I created. I am having a terrible time with 0.1 baked evolutionists there. Come and give me something proper to chew on. Thanks.

Logicboy03: What problem remains fiercely debated today in evolution?

Problems like the fossil record, kind sir.

The theory is sound.

Maybe you did not read the part where I said that I believe in evolution. You see, this is part of the problem with you. You do not take your time to caefully read and see what is being said and what is not being said. I have never debated evolution on this forum and this is my 5th year on this forum. If you were keen enough, you would recognize that the discussion is not about disproving evolution, which I do believe in, even if I am wrong. You would recognize that I am trying to make a case against undirected and mindless evolution.

The fossil collection is what is left to complete. Do you really know what a fossil is and how difficult it is to get ones in proper shape? People who use fossils to criticse evolution are quite ignorant of the fact that

a) There are already transitional fossils found
b) The fossil record for anything is going to be difficult. Imagine trying to find your great great granfathers skeleton from the the 12th century. Even if uyou manage to find it, there is no guarantee that it would be in a usable state
c) Evolution as a theory is already cemented both with the little fossils we have and the genetic evidence.

No sir: try again; and bear in mind my comment above.

Doubtless, fossils will be hard to find and even put together. But 4 billion years (or less) of evolution would still disclose myriad species of an intermediate (not transitional - note the distinction above in my post to alfaman) nature. It is impossible and even ridiculous to claim that fish evolved to reptiles and reptiles evolved to birds and birds evolved to mammals or other such combination - and not have any intermediate fossils whatsoever to show this - notwithstanding that if this were the case, there must be trillions of them all around us.

So in short, you are an ignorant waste of time.

Game over.

So in short, you are debunked! Next!

Logicboy03:


Good thing he did that because this is embarrassing for him!

You have to be having a laugh. I also assume alfaman is being humorous again, if he does not know the concept of "Id.iots's guides".

Answer my questions if you will. There is no point running around shouting "embarrassing!" "debunked" "foolish!" and other such, if you do not have the stomach or energy or aptitude for such a discussion.

It is no use, when called out to defend that which you believe - and a critical aspect of it therewith - evolution - that you simply shout - "embarrassing!" and then run away?

Logicboy03: Darwin died in 1882 (about 130 years ago) without a complete knowledge of evolution. To use the scienitific criticism from the 19th- earl 20th century is not only archaic but dubious on your part.

O, but he recognized a problem straightaway, and might I add, that problem remains fiercely debated even today.

Transitional fossils exist but you asked about intermediate fossils between fish and reptiles (missing links), taking a 2oth century deist thinking of missing links.

I actually mentioned intermediate fossils in my posts, I think I only mentioned transitional fossils in responding to you. At all events there is a clarification up there - between the two, and yes, why on earth should intermediate fossils not exist?

alfaman2: Now that you have started quoting wikipedia, maybe this wikipedia list might help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

It appears you simply googled the term and posted a link without reading it. Here is from your link - and please note the bold - and particularly the underlined -

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species 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. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

You see, this is why I specifically laid out the OP the way I did. Can you point me to an genuine intermediate fossils in that link? Can you see the problem now?

Let me ask the question like a true village man that I am. Creatures evolved from single cell upwards. As such, for this to happen, intermediate forms must have lived and existed and died and also become extinct. Where are their fossils?

This is why I drew that simple primary-school list up there showing gaps. Please, help me with the intermediate fossils between fish and reptile, reptile and bird, bird and mammal, etc.

Thank you, ever kind, noble and gracious sir, so kindly to the illiterate needs of his dear subjects such as my humble self.

Logicboy03: Then what the hell do you mean by number 2

This is what I mean -

There were serious scientific objections to the process of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution, including Karl von Nägeli's insistence that a trivial characteristic with no adaptive advantage could not be developed by selection. Darwin conceded that these could be linked to adaptive characteristics. His estimate that the age of the Earth allowed gradual evolution was disputed by William Thomson (later awarded the title Lord Kelvin), who calculated that it had cooled in less than 100 million years. Darwin accepted blending

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Summary_of_Darwin.27s_theory

As for the intermediate species thing, you embarrassed yourself. Go and read. We know that is was a trap. A badly set one for atheists who believe in evolution that backfired on you

It is a legitimate problem which serious scientists as well as Darwin himself have dwelt extensively on, so I have no idea what you are on about -

Chapter IX deals with the fact that the geologic record appears to show forms of life suddenly arising, without the innumerable transitional fossils expected from gradual changes. Darwin borrowed Charles Lyell's argument in Principles of Geology that the record is extremely imperfect as fossilisation is a very rare occurrence, spread over vast periods of time; since few areas had been geologically explored, there could only be fragmentary knowledge of geological formations, and fossil collections were very poor. Evolved local varieties which migrated into a wider area would seem to be the sudden appearance of a new species. Darwin did not expect to be able to reconstruct evolutionary history, but continuing discoveries gave him well founded hope that new finds would occasionally reveal transitional forms.[114][115] To show that there had been enough time for natural selection to work slowly, he again cited Principles of Geology and other observations based on sedimentation and erosion, including an estimate that erosion of The Weald had taken 300 million years.[116] The initial appearance of entire groups of well developed organisms in the oldest fossil-bearing layers, now known as the Cambrian explosion, posed a problem. Darwin had no doubt that earlier seas had swarmed with living creatures, but stated that he had no satisfactory explanation for the lack of fossils.[117] Fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian life has since been found, extending the history of life back for billions of years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Geologic_record

Frankly I am tired of your puerile methods of discussion. I ask you for transitional fossils and the only response is "You have embarrassed yourself!" How is that a coherent answer to anything? How do you expect the religious antievolution theist to respect anything you say? Ol boy, if all you have come here to say is to shout "debunked!" in your usual way, without uttering a single intelligble word, please leave me to my foolishness and tomfoolery here, ok? Surely that is not too much to ask.

Foolish deist. I used to respect you until you started all these dubious christian tactics

So I guess all the scientists that have spent years and serious energy addressing these same issues in the TOE are adopting "christian tactics"?

*Sigh*

@ Ooman,

I want to believe of course, that the comments of yourself and alfaman, are meant as jokes. Your response to his, however, suggests that you see that as a serious comment or rebuttal. That would be deeply unfortunate.

Please, as a guide for discussion, see Darwin's own comments on the matter -

Difficulties for the theory

Chapter VI begins by saying the next three chapters will address possible objections to the theory, the first being that often no intermediate forms between closely related species are found, though the theory implies such forms must have existed. Darwin attributed this to the competition between different forms, combined with the small number of individuals of intermediate forms, often leading to extinction of such forms.[107] The rest of the chapter deals with whether natural selection could produce complex specialised structures, and the behaviours to use them, when it would be difficult to imagine how intermediate forms could be functional. Darwin said:

"Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?"[108]

His answer was that in many cases animals exist with intermediate structures that are functional. He presented flying squirrels, and flying lemurs as examples of how bats might have evolved from non-flying ancestors.[109] He discussed various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."[110]

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

So please, can we begin the discuss the question of intermediate fossils on a serious note, or do you wish to drool about with pedantic jokes such as that advanced by alfaman?