Did one of them look like this?:
Of course I'm sure creationists will have a ready retort, no matter how convoluted.
Cool1
Ping!
Y’all keep up the faith. Keep digging, and have fun.
One thing: the C/E debate hasn't shown signs of evolution.
Did one of them look like this?:
Quotes from the article:
“We still don’t know exactly what we’ve got”
“discovery could lead to breakthroughs”
“Maybe different species”
“My hunch is a single variable species”
Your comment is pretty strong given the sort of amorphous, conditional nature of the understanding of this as set out in the New York Time’s piece.
Never mind, of course, that all "missing links" between ape and man have been debunked over time in the most embarrassing ways for evolutionists.
And, of course, the fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and fully formed, matching the Creationist model and completely refuting Darwin.
Over 250 million fossils from 250,000 species have been found, yet only a handful are even compatible with evolution and not one that can't fit into a Creationist model. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of transitional fossils.
What we have here is a lie even bigger than global warming hoax.
“Fossils Reveal Clues on Human Ancestor (transitional fossil alert)”
H-ll, I worked with some transitional fossils in academia!
(being facetious...to some degree)
Good find.
(D. Raup "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin Field Museum of Natural History 50 (Jan, 1979)).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." (Tom Kemp, Oxford University)
"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2. Sudden appearances. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."
(Gould, S.J. (1977), "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May)
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)
"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group and that."
(Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, gpg. 19`)
Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."
Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138
oh, cool...transitional fossil evidence...they finally dug up one...they think.
“Of course I’m sure creationists will have a ready retort, no matter how convoluted.”
Really no reason to do so friend. Those that hold to a “evolutionary” worldview won’t change their views, short of the miraculous. And those of us called “Creationists” won’t abandon our faith (I’m not ashamed to call it that).
So, the point is....Why continue to bother?
“They may also yield insights into the first members of the human genus, Homo.”
Being facetious, I never cared much for being in the genus “Homo.” :-)
Two new gaps bump.
idiot...leaky found ‘Lucy’s” knee 1/2 mile down river from the rest of her... the knee was the ‘transitional bone”
there was then, and is now no evidence the knee bone was part of ‘lucy”, and these bones now are the same fraud.
you may now give your ‘convoluted retort”
neither side is gonna convince the other they are wrong. So why do you folks even try.