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
My “ultimate goal” is to have science taught in science class.
That is not a choice between science and God. Indeed, most scientists in the USA are, like myself, people of faith.
It is a choice between useful and applicable knowledge and useless religious apologetics.
According to this paradigm Geocentric Creationists are more devout and pious than Heliocentric Creationists.
Young Earth Creationists are more devout and pious than Old Earth Creationists.
Old Earth Creationists are more devout and pious than those that believe in “theistic” evolution.
Those that believe in “theistic” evolution are more devout than those that believe evolution is science and has little to do with faith in God.
So you see, it is impossible for them to acknowledge either of us as being Christians and accepting of scientific evidence, because by their “sliding scale of piousness” we are at the ‘extreme’ end of those who accept scientific evidence as completely compatible with Christian faith (as the majority of Christian denominations acknowledge).
I don't believe in a god and I don't believe that creationism being mentioned in public school will result in your strawman fantasy.
It's not my strawman fantasy -joke, it's coyoteman's.
I simply think that creationism is not remotely based on science and therefore should not be taught as such. You can teach it all day long in some other course, like Mythology or Comparative Religion if you'd like.
Uhhh, no I'd like it taught in science class thank you very much.And the exact same can be said for the sheer conjecture and faith of evolution.
Who was it you think appointed you or your ilk to speak for everyone anyway?Was it Michael Newdow that put that idea into your head?
Wait - didn't you just write that you never engage in personal attacks?
Ummmm, nope, I sure didn't, you must have me confused with someone else.I'm sure it seems that way a good bit of the time though, because I'm sure alot of posters are used to abusing people without a fight back or at the very least are used to people giving them a free pass while they try to undermine a conservative website with their PC liberal tripe.
Sarcastically calling me Confucius and then a liberal? Again, we differ on the definition of "personal" and "attack."
Ummmm, nice try but no dice, but it was one of your ilk with the strawman of weird animals, rather you want to acknowledge your embarassment or not.
Hm. Good one. Except I didn't ask for proof at all. I asked for evidence.
*SIGH*...OK, evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that I love my son, for which you can "test" (though please don't, that's creepy) and predict how I will treat him as he gets older. Big difference.
Not necessarily and certainly not that all scientists would agree upon.
I don't know anything about string and membrane and multiverse theory.
Naturally. How very convenient. Well learn up and then demand it be silenced, taught in philosophy courses or comparative religious courses or something and perhaps someone will be impressed with you!
As for the science of studying the effectiveness of prayer, that kinda bombed didn't it?
It did? I was under the impression it was on-going.
Bold statement - and one central to your faith which I respect. I had faith for years, but it revealed itself to be empty at some point. I haven't missed it, I haven't much thought about it, and I won't be going back to it. I retain my morals and my values, and that's good enough for me. (And SHOULD be good enough for you, as I WOULD walk into a burning building for you.)
Fine, but like Michael Newdow, now all you need to do is understand no one's appointed you or anyone else to speak for all of us, or demand what's science or what's not science or what we can or can't teach our kids. Naturally you'll say people are free to teach what they like, just run off to private or homeschool while paying for failed NEA public schools too.
But NO thanks.
And the same goes for court houses, politics, public schools in general and pretty much every other public realm too.
Now you unabashedly say you want creationism taught in science class.
Which is it?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question. Here are several answers, all of which are true:
- We were created for God's pleasure. Our purpose is to praise him and glorify him in every aspect of our lives. We are to love God with all our strength, heart, body, mind, and soul and to love others as we love ourselves.
- The creation story is written in a poetic style. As such, we have to read it as poetry. That does not mean that it is not true, but the primary purpose of the story is to tell us about the who, not the how. Some people are determined to read into it things that simply are not there -- like the insistent belief that the earth is at the exact center of the universe.
- God's ways are higher than ours.
- The creation story does use allegory. God said that Adam and Eve will "surely die" if they ate the fruit. God was primarily referring to spiritual death when he said this. God also said:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel."This statement uses allegory to express a truth: Satan will injure Christ and other followers of God, but Christ will have the ultimate victory.
2. How much of the Bible do you actually believe is true?
Every jot and tittle. In English, this phrase has come to mean "everything." Check the link for the Hebrew meaning.
3. There are specific instances of parables or allegory in the Bible. How do you personally determine which are and are not where it is not outlined?
By the context and the style. There can also be allegory in other biblical truths. For example, only after Jesus came did believers come to recognize that Psalms 22 was referring to more than just King David. I believe that we will recognize other instances of allegory after Christ returns.
4. Do you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven?
Yes.
5. Did Jesus really die on the cross as a substitute for our sins?
Yes.
6. Was Jesus really the Son of God (in the sense He was the ONLY begotten Son of God)?
Yes.
Right, and surely you understand people, including scientists themselves, are going to forever argue about what is or isn't science, what constitues definitions of science and so forth.
And it comes off as disingenuous and impotent when you give string theory, algore's cult, membrane theory, study of prayer and multiverse theory a complete free pass.
Now if people begin demanding all kinds of scriptures be read in chapter one of each study of origins, earth age, etc. I'm right with you...but again, personally, I would very much be satisfied with teaching the controversy as such, and that proponents of ID and evolution will be arguing aout this issue WELL BEYOND the length of the particular science course(s) the students are engaging in presently at hand.
I'm pro-free will, pro-education, anti-indoctrination, pro-American and pro-conservative Judeo-Christian approaches to education that worked for hundreds of years PRIOR NEA. CLEARLY The godless liberal ideology is a failed model, socially, academically; anyway you care to examine it, that's just the way it is!
It is a choice between useful and applicable knowledge and useless religious apologetics.
You keep parroting the same failed tripe allmendream. If there's a choice it's bewtween a failed liberal cult and freedom of education.
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
If you can't understand there's nothing religious in this chemist's observations, then that's on you and speaks to the level of the brainwashing the cult has on you.
It also illustrates each and every time evolution is examined, it's met with a flurry of anti-science, religious attacks, again, on you; not on normal people that don't have various insecurities and sensitivites with God and science.
Thanks for the kind words, Gordon. According to some on this thread, I'm not a Christian and am just another liberal "boot-licker at the Temple of the Cult of Darwin."
I've obviously dropped into the middle of a long, ongoing conversation and don't understand the dynamics. I'm not going to decide who is right and who is wrong. From what I've read on this thread, however, it seems to me that you are both devout and faithful servants of God.
There is nothing “failed” or “liberal” about current biological knowledge. In fact biology has never been a more productive field in terms of knowledge and application.
So I repeat, It is a choice between useful and applicable knowledge and useless religious apologetics.
As far as I can tell, every Christian on FR has been told by another Christian on FR that he or she is headed for hell.
What's another few thousand years of THAT among FRiends?
Rumor has it there's a ballroom with a 2,000 year lease and Wi-Fi on Brimstone-Level 4-B.
It's amazing how much projection is practiced by those who believe that only a select few really understand the Bible.
Exposing projection isn't projection and there really are only a select few that understand the Bible, shoot that's clear just by examning FR alone, where people actually believe being kind to kittens constitues being a Christian.
Very well said, Gordon. Thank you for your testimony, my brother in Christ!
That's absurd because there shouldn't have to be.
There's probably no "official" recogntion that small children need to use the restroom at least twice a day either allmendream.
For a free people, that understand this nation was founded by Christian people, FOR free Christian people, that kind of PC drivel is what's wrong with this country in the fist place.
It's why failed government schools hellbent to socialize instead of educate are so miserable and getting worse.
It's why algore's cult is allowed to take hold.
The place to assuage a child's faith in God is at home and at Church, not in public school science class.
Once again, you completely miss the point, it's not the point at all, rather it's not the schools place to tell a child the God they know that's omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent doesn't "belong" somewhere.
And one of the reasons real science is accepted worldwide, and your “God included” science would be relegated to the benighted backwaters is that not all people in the world who wish to learn and do science share our belief in Jesus the Christ.
I can see you're never ever going to accept the fact that for hundreds of years this country taught science without demanding God had no place in it, where Christianity co-existed in public schools just fine, in fact science flourished, so I'll just let you wallow in your cult.
Science is open to all religious beliefs ...
No one has ever asserted otherwise allmendream...I see you're incapable of arguing without strawmen after all.
...because religious beliefs are completely tangential to scientific evidence and experimentation.
Which begs the question, why are you so hellbent on hiding God from children in science class? What on earth makes you even think you can? How do you go about enforcing it?
I'll point out that this country led the world in scientific insights, for all those years God was welcomed, and we're tallking about teaching science in this country not in science classes all over the world.
You sound like you'd be infinitely happier in a place like Norh Korea or Cuba where the state runs science.
That is an example of microevolution. And we do have "irrefutable proof" that it happens.
I suspect the Georgia parents don't worry much about microevolution being taught to their children, though they are right to insist that it is a theory, not a "fact."
Macroevolution, on the other hand, is "a horse of a different color." It is more of a doctrine than a theory, it seems to me, because there's really no way to test it. Because of this doctrinal quality, it is questionable whether it's even science.
FWIW, JMHO. Thank you so much for writing, tpanther!
What’s your understanding of the mechanism that causes microevolution, and how would that mechanism differ in the case of macroevolution?
Conversely, the historical sciences - e.g. paleontology, archeology, anthropology - operate by the principle that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Due to the spotty historical record, they "fit" evidence into a blueprint explanation which is more like a paradigm than a theory would be to physics.
The problem arises when the one projects onto, or borrows from, the other, overstating what it has discovered.
In this case, the microbiologist in the laboratory observes evolution in bacteria. There is no absence of evidence, the phenomenon can be provoked repeatedly.
But for the paleontologist to ipso facto conclude that all variations in the geologic record occurred by that same mechanism is an overstatement.
Or to put it another way, on the basis of the microbiologists' findings, special creation and panspermia cannot be eliminated as possible full or partial explanations for the paleontologists' discovery.
Really, it's not, it's just a historical interpretation, by laying something someone wants to be true over what they see on the earth today.
Trees. With fruit.
Jeepers atlaw, before I take your proffered hook here, might I ask you a few pertinent questions?
Why would you think there's a "common mechanism" as between micro- and macroevolution involved here in the first place?
I ask because microevolution has proved testable; simply put, macroevolution has not. So logically this implies that the properties and processes of known quantities (i.e., those obtained by direct observation, which is pretty much confined to microevolutionary observation and testing) cannot be extrapolated to unknown quantities (which cannot be obtained by direct observation — that is to say, macroevolution and its suppositional properties).
Since we are speaking of two distinct epistemological or categorical orders here, on what basis do you rely to defend your allegation that they have a "common mechanism" between them in the first place?
Just asking.
Thanks so much for writing, atlaw!
Looks like a "second reality" to me, Mr. B!
Thank you ever so much for the insight!
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.