Posted on 03/04/2009 7:16:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.
References
”And Jehovah God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
I have accepted, by faith, that the Bible is 100% true. One does not have the choice of picking and choosing what is true within the Bible. It's all or nothing. . .
In my opinion, you cannot be a Christian if you do not believe that the human body is comprised of dust and air alone. The claim that the human body is approximately 60% water is a lie perpetrated by atheist scientists.
One may as well say “from molecules animals are formed, and to molecules they shall return”. Perfectly and completely 100% true. Only one slavishly devoted to literalism would insist that “dust” was actually small particles of dirt.
Understood, and I respect that.
I maintain, then, that evolution is consistent with Christianity, but not with the acceptance of the literal truth of the bible. Yes, I am drawing a distinction between the two.
Yeah, but that's just speculation. And where are the half-wheels?
Analogy, allegory, metaphor, and all those other literary weasel words just mean lie, fable, and fiction. All of it is either literally true or literally a lie.
Only one slavishly devoted to literalism would insist that “dust” was actually small particles of dirt.
Well, I've been told in no uncertain terms that if you're not "slavishly devoted to literalism," you're not a Christian. So we're either made of dust and air or God is a liar.
Thanks for the kind argument from reason, rather than just shouting an opinion, MGBGUN. Yes, the traits of super bacteria are an adaptation to their enviroment, but there is a point where adaptation does lead to the development of different species, usually because of geographic isolation. Here is an article in layman's terms that explains how adaptation can ultimately lead to speciation And here is another article -- again in layman's terms -- that lists documented cases of laboratory-induced and naturally observed speciation.Evolution is a fact. The only question is what changes are accountable to evolution. I fall in the squishy middle.
- We have observed evolution in the wild; therefore, it is a fact.
- Evolution is not contrary to the word of God. He often uses natural laws that he created to accommplish his purposes. That does not make them any less miraculous.
- We do not have enough transitional fossils to justify the idea that all life is descended from one-celled organisms, or even to justify the idea that cows and horses evolved from a common ancestor.
- God's word tells us the who. Genesis does not go into detail about the when and the how. God's general revelation to us through his creation does not and cannot contradict God's specific revelation to us in his word.
You have given me a little research work here. At work now, don’t have time but I’ll get back to you. Thanks,
ping
Dude, are you still pinging me?
For all those interested in the kind of “Christian” and “Scientist” DallasMike is, please read the following.
DallasMike the slanderer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#85
Here is where I correct DallasMike’s slander:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#97
Here is where DallasMike confuses inflation with expansion, declaring that inflation has been observed since 1929! As evidence, DallasMike posts a link that actually states just the opposite, and then uses it to call the creationist author of the original article a “liar.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#229
Here is where I point out that his own link says just the opposite, namely that inflation is not observed, and was postulated to fix problems with the Big Bang:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#237
But DallasMike keeps posting the same balderdash confusing inflation with expansion. I finally ask Mr. “Scientist” if he knows the difference between inflation and expansion here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#245
...and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#246
And then DallasMike, the great Christian and “scientist” has the audacity to pretend like he knew the difference all along:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=251#257
And then after fraudulantly trying to claim that he knew the difference all along, he repeats the same claim (which he now knows is a lie) all over again further down the thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?page=290#290
As you can see, I called him DallasMike on his slander and dishonesty and it didn’t make the slightest bit of difference. Therefore, I want nothing to do with DallasMike.
How do they chose what's allegorical and what's not?
How do you choose?
Because if scientists have to agree on every detail of how something works before they can start working on what it does we'd still be stuck arguing about exactly how things like molecular bonds work and there wouldn't be any such thing as the study of chemistry. It's a good way to do things if you're objective is to bring research to a screeching halt.
This question, with a straight face no less, from the darwin-cult crowd that is intolerable of any and all dissent or criticism or inspection of their cult to the point that it's 100% of the time attacked as religion or anti-science.
What's the word...we need a new one to describe this combination of hypocrisy and irony...ironisy...????
No, obviously the proper question to be asked, is: Is there any scenario which would allow evo-cult victims with their multiple God-hang-ups to perceive a world around them the rest of us so plainly see, (or perhaps DON'T see)?
Of course, you could just answer the question. It’s not that difficult. What fossil form, if actually found, would cause you to say “this is a transitional”?
(And while I’d love to take a stab at your question, it needs some rephrasing. I frankly can’t tell what you’re asking.)
Got it.
Oversimplification is a common propaganda technique.
How do you choose?
The way I'm instructed to choose:
through meditation and fellowship, prayer, study of scripture, guidance by the Holy Spirit, it's actually a process.
Process, something one would think evolutionists would for once understand.
65,280 articles touching on pesky details regarding human evolution:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
The library is your friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.