h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This tale explains some gaps in the fossil record, but says nothing about one major factor: that after (relatively) sudden events like mass extinctions or a change in the environment the morphing will speed up considerably.

It is in relatively rapid bursts of evolutionary activity that the bigger changes happen, and this is tantalisingly the very place we would love to have a fossil record but don't. We have plenty of boring stuff, little change, then something happens and we say "what was that?" but the record is lost -- as you say, because of all the usual reasons. This is what the creationist jumps on. "You have plenty of stable fossils, but hardly any unstable ones." You must answer "That is because the unstable periods are relatively very very short."

I am of the opinion that creationists should be treated kindly. They are more beleaguered than they like to appear; a very threatened species. If they are screwing up the education of their children in the mid-USA, don't worry too much; the kids will find out. Kids do.

I wasn't trying to explain the whole process, just pointing out where the "missing" transitionals are.

Quite; your explanation has the great virtue of simplicity.

I came across a good example the other day; of major developments in the art of printing over the past 500 years, some of the most dramatic were within the last 5 years.

Ciao (Please excuse my incorrect English)

First I have to make a compliment for the entry.
It's written in a well understandable way and has a good comparison to make clear this by no means easy topic.

But I'd like to call you on something:
You explain why there are missing transitional forms, and your theory
could be right.
But you forget: The inexistece of these fossils can't explain the evolution. You take it for sure that there was/is an evolution.
How can we be sure that some animals have developed from others when
there are Transitional fossils, say no proof?
Actually there must be lots of them.
Yet, "in fact, the fossils don't deliver only one satisfaying proof for the transition from one species to another..."
(Steven m. Stanley,'Der Neue Fahrplan der Evolution'(german title),1983,P.114)

What other evidence do you have?

Scientists: didn't found the necessary fossils,
"know", that the development of the first cell was
impossible without a planning hand,
haven't ever made or seen or found a mutation from one
species to another,
and last but not least, couldn't ever proof that there was no
creation.

I only like to write this here, because I am against all prejudiced
things, that human believe, though it isn't clear at all.
It's only a theory; not a dogma!
Remember: Once upon a time, Science said, the Earth were flat and the sun went around it...
So, another reason for their inexistence could be: They haven't ever exist...and we have to think again

Thanks for hearing me...

Of course, logically there may be many explanations for the appearance of species.

However, science must seek a solution that is not merely logical, but also (a) the most economical and (b) the most natural one possible.

The evolution explanation is better than the "intelligent design" explanation, because it explains the observed phenomenon completely, without introducing another thing to explain (how did the "planning hand" get there?).

An explanation that relies on the supernatural is not a scientific explanation.

To answer your specific points:
"Scientists didn't found the necessary fossils": on the contrary, they have found a very large number of fossils that support the theory.

"[Scientists] "know", that the development of the first cell was
impossible without a planning hand": this sentence is too vague to have any meaning I can find. What does "know" mean when it is written in quotes?

"[Scientists] haven't ever made or seen or found a mutation from one
species to another": Darwin bred [mutated] pigeons to produce such extreme differences that the change between species is shown to be entirely plausible.

"and last but not least, [scientists] couldn't ever [prove] that there was no creation": no scientist challenges that. It is one of the possible logical explanations; but it is not the most economical or the most natural explanation.

The superiority of the theory of evolution over other theories is that it makes sense of very many otherwise puzzling things. In fact "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution." (Theodosius Dobzhansky; quoted e.g. in http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/units/compev/experts/gingerich.html
about two-thirds down the page.)

Jebedaia

"The inexistece of these fossils can't explain the evolution."

I didn't say it did - my entry just explains why creationists are wrong to claim that there are no transitional fossils.

Consider another example I was given recently:

Creationist; "how did you get to church?"

Boy; "I walked"

C;"How did you do that?"

B;"I put one foot in front of the other, like this" (walks from pew to front of church)

C;"but that doesn't show me how you got into the room by this 'walking'"

B; (Leaves room, re-enters and walks to pew) "Happy now?"

C;"Your demonstration explains the micro-transition involved in crossing the room, but you have not shown me how you walked all the way from your home to church. Clearly, therefore, God transported you here directly. Any other explanation is obviously wrong, and any attempt to discredit this explanation is heretical and anti-christian, damning all who attempt such an explanation to eternity in Hell."

B;"Yeh, right" (walks home).

nice article - had to deal with this kinda thing a lot (studying zoology)

this was said earlier

'Remember: Once upon a time, Science said, the Earth were flat and the sun went around it...'

all i want to point at is that is the beauty of science - it is willing to admit its wrong and wants to find the correct answer so they can change their theories, whereas religion rules etc are set in stone no matter how many centuries outdated they are...

Wow, and this would be without any intelligent intervention?

It's not quite true to say that religion persists unrevised. I had a look at a seventeenth-century library last week, and the biggest part of the collection (tens of thousands of titles) consisted of books on theology . . .