# Show me the fossels? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 25, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812 "2002-07-25T19:25:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![insider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@insider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/insider)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/1 "2002-07-25T19:25:32Z")
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if the theory of evolution is correct. There exists only a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/2 "2002-07-25T19:34:10Z")
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/3 "2002-07-25T20:12:49Z")
I was looking at something else the other day, and came across a list of what purported to be every single Tyrannasaurus Rex ever found. Or parts of one. The list contained only about twenty different T.Rex. They don’t have as many fossils as you might think they do. ---
**Author:** ![Dragline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dragline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragline)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/4 "2002-07-25T20:45:17Z")
The wording of the OP indicates that you really don’t want to know about the thousands of fossils that have been found, along with all of the transitionary examples. Just look up the ancestry of the whale, if you want transitions! The T Rex was a top predator, so there wouldn’t be too many of them, in any case. A fossil is really hard to make, it takes a lot of special circumstances, and then somebody has to find it just as it is eroded out of the bedrock. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/5 "2002-07-25T20:46:27Z")
The search engine is your friend. We discussed this very question less than a month ago in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122904). The issue first comes up at the bottom of page 3. ---
**Author:** ![Dragline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dragline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragline)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/6 "2002-07-25T20:46:41Z")
The wording of the OP indicates that you really don’t want to know about the thousands of fossils that have been found, along with all of the transitionary examples. Just look up the ancestry of the whale, if you want transitions! The T Rex was a top predator, so there wouldn’t be too many of them, in any case. A fossil is really hard to make, it takes a lot of special circumstances, and then somebody has to find it just as it is eroded out of the bedrock. ---
**Author:** ![Dragline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/edb3f5/32.png) [@Dragline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragline)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/7 "2002-07-25T20:48:38Z")
Oops, there’s one right there. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/8 "2002-07-25T21:07:11Z")
That depends on fossils of _what_, **RM Mentock**. Everybody likes big, charismatic vertebrates like _T. rex_. There are incredible numbers of fossils of less impressive critters, plants and algae. It wouldn’t take much work to collect literally billions of radiolarian or diatom fossils. (Examining them all is a different matter) ;). Fossilization definitely biases our knowledge of evolutionary processes towards a greater knowledge of shelled microalgae, lophophorates, corals, and arthropods. Our knowledge of and the presence of transitions\* in these groups is pretty well-documented through the well-preserved fossil records. \*It seems like a lot of discussion of questions like this hinges on what one means by ‘transitional form.’ One person’s transitional form is another’s distinct species. Miscommunication on the meaning of this term especially seems to hamper discussions between creationists and proponents of evolution. To address the OP: I would say that we have enough fossils and transitional sequences to show consistency with evolutionary theory. Perhaps we are operating under different assumptions about how many are enough. How many do you think we should have? ---
**Author:** ![Slugworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4bbf92/32.png) [@Slugworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slugworth)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/9 "2002-07-25T21:47:41Z")
[http://www.owc.org.mn/think-3/anatomy/images/English/Picture/Skeleton.jpg](http://www.owc.org.mn/think-3/anatomy/images/English/Picture/Skeleton.jpg) Physical evidence of a transitional creature. Since evolution has no ‘stages’, and everything is constantly transitioning… ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/10 "2002-07-25T22:23:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by insider \* > \*\*Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if the theory of evolution is correct. There exists only a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? \*\* First off, you are assuming that speciation occurs via a smooth continuum of transitional changes. There is much evidence that such is not the case. See: Punctuated Equilibrium. Second, you seem quite unaware of taphonomic processes. It’s difficult enough to become a fossil in the first place. Afterward, you become subject to a number of geological processes, any of which can utterly destroy you. Processes like weathering and subduction, to name just two. Third, you have to be found. Not every geological layer is available everywhere, for us to dig up fossils as we please. A good many are still waiting to be found. [Here](http://www.nature.com/nsu/020722/020722-5.html) is one that only recently surfaced. Fourth, as others have mentioned, you are ignoring the numerous examples we _have_ found. There are more than a “handful”, and they are far from “questionable”. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/11 "2002-07-25T22:29:22Z")
\>\> Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there I kept them in a shoebox and they got lost in one of my house moves. Sorry 'bout that. ---
**Author:** ![Zweistein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/54ee81/32.png) [@Zweistein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zweistein)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/12 "2002-07-25T22:50:13Z")
Your question is the reason why the Theory of Evolution is still a theory and not a Physical Law. The scientists have indeed a problem with: - missing transitional fossils; - never seen a living species evolving into a new species; - no explanation why short generation species as flies or bacterias etc. don’t evolve proportional to the species of which we have actual proof i.e. existing fossils; - Other theories, which by lack of proof in either case, may be valid also. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/13 "2002-07-25T23:28:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zweistein \* > \*\*Your question is the reason why the Theory of Evolution is still a theory and not a Physical Law. The scientists have indeed a problem with: > > - no explanation why short generation species as flies or bacterias etc. don’t evolve proportional to the species of which we have actual proof i.e. existing fossils; > > - Other theories, which by lack of proof in either case, may be valid also. \*\* Could anyone who speaks English as a native tongue translate these two sentences for me? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/14 "2002-07-25T23:31:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\* > > Could anyone who speaks English as a native tongue translate these two sentences for me? \*\* Sorry about that. That comment was nasty of me. However, I simply can’t make heads or tails of what is meant by either of the cited items. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/15 "2002-07-25T23:40:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zweistein \* > \*\*Your question is the reason why the Theory of Evolution is still a theory and not a Physical Law. \*\* This is the one that always makes me laugh when someone brings it up as some kind of objection to Evolution. It betrays such a complete ignorance of the actual meaning of “theory” in scientific terminology that one can pretty much disregard anything that follows. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/16 "2002-07-25T23:46:48Z")
> **[15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/)** > > Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up “Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.” ---
**Author:** ![Slugworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4bbf92/32.png) [@Slugworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slugworth)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/17 "2002-07-25T23:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zweistein \* > \*\* > > - no explanation why short generation species as flies or bacterias etc. don’t evolve proportional to the species of which \*\* Because that question shows a startling lack of knowledge about the mechanics of evolution, and the entire process itself? Sharks have barely changed in millions of years, because they’ve never had an ecological pressure which resulted in a significant change. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/18 "2002-07-25T23:50:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zweistein \* > \*\* The scientists have indeed a problem with: > > - missing transitional fossils; > - never seen a living species evolving into a new species; > - no explanation why short generation species as flies or bacterias etc. don’t evolve proportional to the species of which we have actual proof i.e. existing fossils; > - Other theories, which by lack of proof in either case, may be valid also. \*\* Nah. Scientists don’t have problems with those items; creationists do. Which would explain why they keep bringing up the same, oft-refuted claims, over…and over…and over…again. Please, **Zweistein** , _learn_ about the fossil record. _Learn_ about how evolution really works. You do yourself no credit by parroting creationist websites. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/show-me-the-fossels/120812/19 "2002-07-25T23:55:28Z")
Zweistein! Read!! [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2)