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
Now how many biology, chemistry geology and physics degrees are going to go to people who learned the earth is only a few thousand years old, humans lived with dinosaurs, and fossils are all from the flood?
Given the choice most Americans opt for science being taught in science class, because it has utility and application in the real world and the free market of ideas, is accepted worldwide, and can land you a good job.
I am anti big Government. Pro Christianity. Pro Constitution. Pro Military (veteran USAF), Pro American CONSERVATIVE.
One doesn't have to reject science in order to be a Conservative and a Christian.
tacticalogic: If I disagree with an argument, I'll say so and why I disagee with it. If I do, it will be about the argument, not the person that's making it.
I've read every post on this thread and then went back and re-read each post made by tacticalogic. Tacticalogic did not begin with insults, but was insulted immediately and repeatedly by others.
It's amazing how much projection is practiced by those who believe that only a select few really understand the Bible.
As long as one person, however uneducated, and however biased, disputes a transitional fossil, there will never be an undisputed transitional fossil.
If I can find you a person who believes the world is flat, then any contention that it is round is disputed.
This is what you’re hanging your hat upon.
You are being reeled-in by a duplicitous man completely devoid of shame. Not only is this man an unrepentant and unapologetic liar, he is the absolute king of insults (all the while assuming the role of the injured party when FReepers point out his wormtongue ways). If it is civility you want, your goal will not be furthered by this two-faced residual puddle of human being. For an example of how this wolf in sheep’s clothing operates, you might want to check out the following (please take note of how Mr. Two-Face enters the thread):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2199543/posts?page=130#130
I try to stay civil and on topic. I’ve probably been grouchier today than normal. I haven’t had anything to eat all day, and I’m about halfway through a gallon of electrol prep. I should probably just shut it down for the night.
What place would you have for God in science class?
Can God be measured? Made to act replicably?
How many times do you need to go over it allmendream?
You’ve cosnsistently failed with the mneasurable and replicable, because of string theory, membrane theory, algore’s cult, big bang, multiverse theory, and so on.
A design and an intelligence behind the design is still sufficient for me allmendream.
I’ve even explained that a paragraph explaining that evolution and ID are controversial, and neither are fact and books are available in the library was and still is good enough for me.
I'll take it under advisement. Right now, I'm not in a very good mood and should probably leave the thread alone for the rest of the night.
Now I’m getting the name... groovy.
Everybody’s got an angle (or was that angel?)
You didn’t answer the question: are you, in fact, suggesting that there is something that God is not capable of?
“How ‘bout getting lost? Can God get lost?”
If he wanted to, then of course he could.
“The question was if there was something God cannot do, and I answered.”
No, I believe the question here was whether you felt that allegory was necessarily a lie, since you inaccurately rephrase my statements using “lie” when I use the word “allegory”.
Right you are. In fact, I consider both to be affronts to true Christianity. Keep up the good work!
May I suggest you read the following carefully, and throw it in wormtongue’s face every time he decides to wax holier than thou. If there is anything I have learned in this life, it is this: YOU DON’T DEBATE KNOWN LIARS, YOU EXPOSE THEM FOR ALL TO SEE.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2199543/posts?page=130#130
“You didn’t answer the question: are you, in fact, suggesting that there is something that God is not capable of?”
Metmom... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. You can’t claim to both be a Christian and also believe the entire Bible is fantasy.
Buckarama... Why so combative, dude? Wanna jump on the lady instead of answering logical questions.
Done with you bud. Not worth the time.
Photography can used to mislead, for instance there have been examples where it was found that that certain skull images were enlarged to fit in the presentation and others may have been reduced.
Some of those skulls evos have in the past used as transitional hominids are well smaller than a babys skull.
What place does God have in Science class?
Are you proposing an experiment that purports to measure him or detect HIS inestimable hand? Is faith not enough that you need a scientific determination on if God is?
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
You must have faith in things that are hoped for, in evidence of things that are not seen. Not try to test God in a laboratory.
Apparently neither you, nor wormtongue know the difference between ICR and CRI. Why am I not surprised?
So you’re simply declaring that I’m combative when I’m just asking a question? You’ve intentionally misrepresented every point I’ve made in this thread; that pleases me, as the audit trail of your deception remains to cast further doubt on your position.
You’re done with me? Hardly! You lose.
“Apparently neither you, nor wormtongue know the difference between ICR and CRI. Why am I not surprised?”
We’re not the People’s Front of Judea, we’re the Judean People’s Front!
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.