Creationists, could you define “transitional species”?


Cause you know I would have thought that any individual animal can always be classified inside a species. Any creature halfway between two others would still have been in its own species. In which case every species is a transitional species, between what it was, and what it will be.
I am the transitional link…

Every creature/life form on planet Earth is transitional. Every life form is forever changing, that’s what life does. It evolves and changes to suit its environment and climate, its situation.

This is what the creationists can’t understand. They always ask for a half human – half ape example or a half bird – half donkey, all that sort of illogical stuff.

Look how humans have changed, even in the last 100 years, we are on average taller, heavier, more intelligent. That’s just a small example.

The human appendix has become almost insignificant due to diet change over the past 1000 years. Evolution.

A great site to visit if you have any doubts:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/670Intelli…

No, I couldn’t, sorry. I could look it up on wikipedia, or read a Christian article on it right now, then answer this question, but to tell you the truth, I have no idea what a transitional species is, or why it even matters. I am not a dumbass, however. I am going to read about it and then I will hopefully gain an understanding of it.
Evolutionists can believe whatever they want. It is perfectly fine with me. I will tell them that the Bible is true, and some will laugh at me, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. I will feel bad that they don’t believe, and they may think that I’m misguided and ignorant to their claims. I’ll try not to be– that’s why I even bothered to look at this.
I just don’t get why you would even bother answering (or asking) just so you could say how stupid the creationists are. There’s no point, it just makes them angry (are they really going to say “Wait…i AM a dumbass…”). Same thing with saying “evolutionists are stupid”, it doesn’t mean anything. “Creationists are wrong”– fine. “Evolutionists are wrong”– fine.
I don’t think creationism or evolution are going to fall at the hands of a single point, like “transitional species”…there is a creationist more educated than me (and most of the people who responded) who can probably refute this point; and an educated evolutionist who can refute his. I’ll let the people who actually know how to debate this do so. I’ve heard compelling evidences from both sides, but I don’t intend make an example of my ignorance and start throwing out rash generalizations about evolutionists just to say something.

Before you go calling anyone else a “dumb ***,” have you not considered the possibility that an evolutionary process could have taken place within the framework of God’s Creation?

No offense, but “evolution fans” such as yourself always seem to be the only “dumb asses” who think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Why this “either-or, but not both” thinking? Why are many “evolution fans” so unable — or so unwilling — to think outside the box?

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

It’s entirely possible that an evolutionary process was part of God’s creative work.

If evolution happened, it was only by God’s doing.

True, the Bible says that God took “six days” to create everything.

Many of us Christians, though, understand that “six days” is metaphorical language used to convey the reality of creation in a way that ancient minds could understand.

It’s doubtful that ancient minds could fathom the concept of “millions of years.” Putting things into a metaphorical six-day image made it possible for them to grasp the religious truth behind the story — which is really the only part of the story that’s important.
.

I see that you are adept at Googling just like some creationists are. Thorough research is much more rewarding than visiting websites that may or may not have the correct information. Your question was more directed at yourself than it was creationists because you abruptly answered your own question then proceeded to throw in a completely unnecessary condescending remark directed at creationists.

Very immature and shows why so many of those types of questions are never answered. You should have stayed with the initial question and left the rest of the extra curricular activity out. Perhaps more people would have tried to answer your question had you done so.

A transitional species would appear to be a species that is transitional. It would be the point B when going from A to C. Example- prehistoric horses, eventually going down the line until we have modern-day domesticated horses.
All sorts of horses with names I can’t pronounce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_o…
Here’s a nice chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horsee…

Yes : ” transitional species: 1. a species that is transitional. 2. a species that transitions from another.”

Did I win?

Pretty easy question.

“The problem is that there is really no such thing as a transitional species. The reason for this is that all species are transitional species.”

You are correct, every species is a “transitional species”, every individual within that species is also “transitional”, every fossil is a “transitional fossil”. Just like the farcical distinction between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”, it has nothing to do with science.

However, if you’re going to post something like this here, you probably want to cite something a little more valid than Wikipedia. “Reality by consensus” doesn’t work very well.

That is an interesting point and a good one at that.

I don’t think some of them could, really. I read a lot so I learn “big” words, but sometimes the meaning is unclear and I have to look it up. I know I’ve caught myself using words I don’t fully understand and had to backtrack a bit and figure it out. Some of them may hear the words, but lacking a full understanding of what they mean and lacking understanding of the greater “context” they like to invoke, they can only use them, not explain or understand them.

BTW, I have an excuse for my fubar moments with words. English is not my first language. =p

Even your own scientists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils.

Since you seem to be not intelligent enough to know what they are, I will tell you what your own people say.

Fossils that record the small changes that show the development of a species over time.

You know, the “missing link”.

The link you gave shows an artists conception of what some scientists claim MIGHT be a transition.

Show us some fossils, not pictures of imaginary animals

Gee, I’m glad you are not on my debate team

Kp

God gave man the power to reason for a reason. He also gave us the ability to have faith in things we don’t understand for a reason. I figure that if you go through life overly dependant on one of these faculties or another you doing yourself and those around you a real disservice.

For myself, I find it absolutly amazing that anyone could deny that the principles of evolutionary biology, including a transitional species, don’t exist. Like seriously people, how the hell do you explain a Poodle? Mankind has seen it happen even within the confines of recorded history (the hairless pig for example) I figure species were designed to adapt to their environment and have natural selection work in the world. Where I disagree, and where I feel I find my greatest evidences for creation comes down to other things you see in the natural world like sexual reproduction. Seriously, how can anyone explain how an animal population can be equally half female and half male and be an evolutionary event? In this circumstance you have half the population consuming resources, taking up space, and doing next to nothing towards expanding that population outside of contributing genes. In my mind that doesn’t seem to be very efficient and totally against the principles of natural selection yet it still exists? Explain that one. That doesn’t even get into how tedious and consumptive the reproductive process of the most populous species on the planet (namely man) is and how that runs counter to natural selection as well.

There is room for science and evolutionary theory along side faith. People just need to use their natural faculties and not be lazy to find the proper balance.

Leave a Comment