|
but... that creates TWO MORE GAPS!!!
(It's in the Arctic NOW, YECs. It was near the equator THEN.)
Cool stuff! Of course, the science content will be lost on the 5000 year old Creationist luddite nuts.
Thanks for the ping!
What a joke. What is there, 2 supposed transitionals now? Boy, anything passes as science now.
There's a couple of problems with this "missing link" like the Archaeopteryx before it, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds." Here's the problem with these fossils labeled as "transitionals":
It has long been predicted that fossils should reveal many organisms “in transition” between different types. What the record does reveal is a history of mass extinctions and sudden appearances of new complex types. After each extinction (brought about by various mechanisms such as impact events), hundreds and sometimes thousands of life forms appear in their final form without transitions.
Millions of year’s worth of fossil layers should produce consistent and numerous transitional fossils if evolutionary theory is correct. The fossils do not produce such evidences. The most popular transitional debate is over the possible link between birds and dinosaurs. Dinosaur fossils that are similar to birds, or birds that seem similar to dinosaurs, are held up as transitionals. There are a couple problems with this debate that are usually glossed over.
First, defining these, or any, fossils as transitionals is based largely upon appearance. Determining the relation of various life forms used to be chiefly based on these appearances, also known as homology. However, we can find similar features between many very different animal types. Exactly what is the duck-billed platypus a transition from or to? In fact, many types of animals originally thought to be related or descended from the same ancestor — such as two types of river dolphins which look virtually identical — have been shown through genetics to have developed independently. Genetics is revealing that homology is often a poor indicator of relation.
Another point of contention over dinosaur-to-bird fossils is that in spite of similarities between certain types of birds and dinosaurs, their differences represent an impassable gulf. This gulf is known as biochemical complexity or irreducible complexity. The biochemical systems of any organism are extremely complex and interdependent. Remove or damage one system, many others are affected and the organism will die or have a greatly reduced life span. The origin of new, complex biochemical systems, such as those needed to create the avian lung or flight itself, cannot be created piecemeal without endangering the organism or killing it.
This is why evolution’s idea of cumulative steps producing new traits, which in turn are supposed to produce entirely new life forms, is problematic. Creating such a new form of life requires a complete and simultaneous change of major and minor biochemical systems. Small, singular changes are more apt to be ignored and larger ones seen as defects by the organism. What kind of mechanism could produce the structural changes in a dinosaur to gradually or suddenly allow it to become bird-like? Evolutionists do not know.
Also realize that whether or not these transitionals are indeed transitions is often based on who is defining the fossil. Is this fossil simply a bird-like dinosaur or a dinosaur-like bird? Or is it really a transition? If we were to assume for a moment that these fossils are transitional forms, we still have the serious problem known as the temporal paradox. These supposed transitional forms are in the fossil record after the first known, fully formed, undisputed bird fossils. Also consider that because the “transitionals” are fully formed in all their components, they are not in transition by definition. No partial developments indicating a future transformation. The logical conclusion is that we cannot consider these fossils transitions to anything.
In the end, the problems with changing from one complex system to another is the simplest reason of why the fossil record is devoid of undisputed transitions. Consider one last example, the giraffe. We do not find many fossils attesting to the “evolution” or “transition” of the giraffe from earlier ancestors. This does not stop evolutionists from trying to explain its origin. Its long neck and legs were supposedly formed to overcome a need to feed off trees with each generation having slightly longer necks and legs. This height introduces the problem of making it difficult for the giraffe to drink by creating pressure changes in the circulatory system when it bends its neck to reach the ground.
Without an exceedingly complex system to control pressure changes, the brain would hemorrhage and the giraffe would die when it bent over to drink water. This system had to develop simultaneously with the gradual expansion of the neck from generation to generation. Assuming for a moment that each giraffe could indeed pass on its stretched neck (produced by trying to reach higher branches) to the next generation, exactly how would this produce the advanced pressure control system to keep the giraffe alive? Evolution cannot explain the development of this necessary survival feature in the giraffe. The astute observer may also conclude that if giraffes so badly needed to reach trees to survive, they would have died long before they grew long necks.
So this new "transitional" story is just like previous ones in that it doesn't explain the appearance of complex, fully-formed animals. Indeed, how can a fully-formed, complex animal be a transitional? It's simply wishful thinking on the part of Darwinian Fundamentalists.
Just as Darwin said..............
Proves nothing. It is an animal that existed and went extinct. There is no proof of that it's or any of it's decendents were different from their parents.