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
It’s not my goal in life or my calling to doubt others Christianity based on small disagreements. With all my heart I believe that the Earth is literally as old as the Bible states. Too much of the rest of the Word of God relies on the Genealogy and pattern laid down there.
From what I’ve studied I also believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution (as theorized by Darwin) than in a single Creator with a literal Creation.
But from what you’ve said you believe strongly in Christ and his sacrifice literally and believe wholeheartedly in the salvation that comes through His name, so the rest is just a matter of both of us working through Romans 14.
Again, I do pray God blesses you and very much thank you for the encouragement.
I guess the reply was meant for Bucky, maybe???
Either way, I’m happy to see someone else on here passionate about their faith. I was beginning to think us literal Bible believers were completely surrounded.
God bless...
“Say goodnight, Gordon. The thread remains for research purposes.”
‘Sup, Buck?
I had already gone to bed when you posted this one.
Sorry I didn’t say goodnight. Hope you didn’t miss me too much!
You pick up where you left off tonight? Come on. You can tell me...
“What’s that?” [excerpt]
Well, let's see....God Himself says He cannot lie. Paul wrote that He can't be tempted by sin. Take it up with God...oh, I forgot. You have all the answers.
That is two straight posts you have lied about me. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Good job sniffing out this demon, Fichori. He claimed I used the word “lie” in Post 70 in reference to him, when the word, or any derivative of it, doesn’t appear in my post. That is twice he lied about me on this thread now. Thanks for the heads-up!
Thanks. I noticed an uptick yesterday and one dude who apparently signed on just yesterday for the express purpose of slamming Creationists.
None of them answer direct questions. They only attack then try to play the wounded pup when we defend. They should not be allowed on the site if that’s how they act when they’re on. The other thing that sticks out is they all sound exactly alike.
I appreciate you’re taking the time to explain.
GG
Bucky’s busted again... DC - thanks for the heads up there too, Fichori.
“Why can’t everybody jus’ get along?”
Because Bucky and his ilk don’t play by the rules (they have none for themselves, just others)
Duly noted. I'll know, in the future, not to take you seriously.
“I would say the difference between an embryo (irrespective of whether there has been brain development or not), and a sperm or egg is that, absent interference, the embryo will become a human being. A sperm or an egg will not.
I know misscarriages happen. So do heart attacks. That doesn't justify murder. My $.02.” --Gumlegs
The bottom line is that nothing discovered in the laboratory can falsify either special creation or panspermia.
Looked... Liked.
Your page answered quite a few questions I’ve had. One of the most informational pages I’ve seen on the topic of freepers.
Thanks for the link.
You need to update your list on your homepage. Two evos need to be reclassified as banned.
Which two?
Sorry I missed this reply - I got sidetracked by a few others.
My “shocking, jaw-dropping conclusion” was based on the Bible (what do you base your conclusions on?), and it was the whole point of the Reformation. It wasn’t about corrupt priests or sale of indulgences; it was about sola fide and sola scriptura.
Martin Luther said “The pope boasts that he’s the head of the church,” Luther said. “I would gladly have conceded this to the pope if he had only taught the gospel.” Most of the other reformers would not have conceded that, nor would I. There is one head of the church and one intermediary between God and man, and that’s Jesus Christ.
I don’t provide a “ faith-evaluation scorecard” for anyone, but I do compare what Bible teachers say to the scripture to see if what they say is so. I’m sure there are true Christians within the Catholic church, but it is despite, not because of, the teachings of the Catholic church.
There are also many wonderful people in the world who are not saved, because being good or even great isn’t good enough when God’s standard is perfection. The only way to heaven is to trust Christ and have his righteousness accounted to us.
If you’d like to discuss the merits of my conclusions, I’d be glad to hear. If you’d prefer to contine your “sadly obtuse” ad hominem attacks, I’ll pass.
“There is one head of the church and one intermediary between God and man, and that’s Jesus Christ.” [excerpt]Exactly!
Sorry—in 61 I referred to “allegory”. Following the exchange to post 70, you referred to it as “lie”. It is inescapable—I said allegory, you substituted lie.
The bible is allegorical. It is not science. It should never be taught as science. Fortunately, as evidenced by this exchange, creationists can’t make it to first base in the defense of their own position.
Not mean, just hypocritical. Expecting another free pass no doubt.
I like the "mythology" jab too...are you going to say something about my being rude and saracstic again next?
You're a little more self-absorbed than the average lib huh?
It must be nice to be a nurse in a town where the flu strain is identical year in and year out and you can just give the same vaccination every year. Dude, you kill me.
My all time very favorite movie 'Animal House' comes to mind: Confusing adapatation with whatever it is that passes for darwinism these days is just no way to go through life son.
What's that -joke, that you're more self-absorbed than the average lib?
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.