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
GLDNGUN:
Why is that evolutionists can’t agree on something basic like, oh, HOW EVOLUTION WORKS, and when that’s pointed out they try to pass it off as something inconsequential.
tacticalogic:
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.
GLDNGUN didn’t say anything about “every detail”, he asked about the very essence of the establishment of parameters of evolution study itself.
And of course when it comes to chemistry, we have to include only those so-called “objective” chemists that agree with the ideology and worldview of the scientific establishment, meaning science has next to nothing to do with it, rendering tacticalogic’s argument completely impotent.
per usual.
Yeah. I’m with you. Why bother with that reading and learing stuff when there’s tv to watch.
We have irrefutable proof that evolution is a fact. Have you not read of super bacteria which have developed resistance to antibiotics? That is evolution. There is no denying it. It is an event that has been observed in our lifetimes.
Incredible that the scientific community didn’t get your memo!
The responsible group of Georgia parents concerned about evolution being taught as fact and not theory have been slandered and ridiculed when they dared place stickers on science textbooks reminding students evolution is theory and NOT fact; and here’s proof positive that godless liberals and their ilk need to be reigned in, as if we somehow needed more proof.
BTW, adaptation is not the same thing as evolution. Implying such is frankly every bit as desperate as suing people not over science but because of their vast liberal insecurities and multiple hang-ups with God to remove stickers to prevent them from telling children the truth.
Also, you apparently didn’t get the memo too that evolution isn’t an event but a process.
Like I say, I’m with you. If we don’t know everything, we don’t know anything.
so what did these superbacteria evolve into?
mammals?
birds?
a sarcastic FReeper?
Thanks. You just gave me the opportunity to hit “Report Abuse.”
BTW, adaptation is not the same thing as evolution. Implying such is frankly every bit as desperate as suing people not over science but because of their vast liberal insecurities and multiple hang-ups with God to remove stickers to prevent them from telling children the truth.
Also, you apparently didn’t get the memo too that evolution isn’t an event but a process.
Read post 127. I expounded a bit on my earlier comment. I don't know why you call me desperate. I'm a very conservative, 100% cretionist, Bible-believing Christian who is not afraid of the truth. Why? Because all truth is God's truth. And I'm not one to read things into the Bible that aren't there.
Oh, the humanity!
Once again, I get it.
I think pretty much everbody does. It's that same old crap over and over again. Accusations of "projection", name calling, general insults will now ensue.
You're quite welcome. I am so glad that you're open-minded enough to research things and not just call names. You don't know how refreshing that is on these threads.
I was a liberal in my late teens and early twenties. I changed because what I observed did not match up with what I was hearing in the media. One doesn't want to be so open-minded that your brains fall out but, if I had rejected what I observed, I would be just another brain-dead liberal.
I don't know the extent that evolution has played in creating the wonderful variety of life on God's earth. I think that it is much less than what the "evangelical atheists" claim and at least a bit more than those who believe that the Bible explicitly rules out evolution. Whatever it is, it's an opportunity for Christians to rejoice and glorify God. It was he who created all of the physical laws of the universe and set them into motion. What a wonderful God that we serve! It takes my breath away when I meditate on what Jesus has done for us.
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.
Fascinating.
I would recommend a Christ centered church, with Holy Spirit guided Bible/scripture study, to better understand Christianity.
Then there's the issue of not being a good (atheist) scientist if you don't believe man was ultimately from primordial soup/pond scum, i.e. wet dirt.
But without original sin, why do we need Christ's redeeming sacrifice?
If we evolved, why do we need God? What purpose does he serve in our lives? If He's just an allegory, screw Him.
On the other hand, the Genesis account is short of specifics on how God created man, and taking the Genesis account alone I see room for evolution as a method, as well as both the young earth and old earth accounts.
Or we could just scrap the Bible and go totally naturalistic, but then the basis for Christianity completely disappears, as does a basis for Christian morality.
It could be based on the morality of another religion, or even a morality of naturalistic philosophy, of course. But the last, at least, have not worked out too well, historically.
Contrast this with those devoted to the PC cult of evolution and demand that everyone believes man came from primordial soup..., i.e., dirt.
I've always associated dust with dirt, although, when dusting the house I wound't call a dusty house necessarily "dirty", as in unclean or virulent.
I only have one thing to say to you:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2199543/posts?page=130#130
Before I answer the question I must first identifiy if I’m addressing the cult of evolution or the theory of evolution.
Because it involves two very different answers.
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.