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
Common sense illustraterd by all walks of life.
And it’s dissenters.
Or is a theory not being falsified only trivial when it’s a theory they don’t like?
Bingo, same for measurable, repeatable, testable...
Since you're foreever whining about evidence, let's see some.
Absolutely. Many fine, sincere Christians believe in a young earth. However, I have seen firsthand the damage that the belief causes.
The two disciplines are distinct from each another as betty boop and I have explained. For instance, in the lab, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the field, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When one applies the lab to the field he is making a presupposition that all variation observed in the field must have occurred the same way. It is a statement of faith, a "just so" story to those with alternative explanations.
Likewise, there is no way to falsify the explanation that the ability to mutate and/or adapt was part of the design whether the source was God or an alien race.
Also, I have seen no claim of a mechanism intervening to prevent macroevolution - I have only seen the observation (which you call 'trivially true') worded several different ways that the finding in the microbiologist's lab does not ipso facto explain the finding in the paleontologist's dig.
There's a difference between can't be falsified and hasn't been falsified. ID can't be falsified because it doesn't make any predictions that can be tested to get a firm yes or no answer. Just like the theory that God created us all 5 minutes ago with everything in place can't be falsified either. The fact that there are basically no criteria for falsifying ID is one of the reasons it's not a scientific theory.
If you disagree, perhaps you could propose a criterion. What test might give a result that could falsify ID?
Got it, thanks!
“And don't call me "son."” [excerpt]Well, ok son.
My you are clever. Grow up.
“My you are clever. Grow up.”Grow up and become a crotchety old grouch like you?
“Absolutely. Many fine, sincere Christians believe in a young earth. However, I have seen firsthand the damage that the belief causes.”So because you as an OECer have the ability to make a few YECers loose their faith instead of accept what you tell them, that makes the YEC position damaging?
“I'm probably younger than you.” [excerpt]Well, that would explain the immaturity...
“Are you aware of the irony inherent to the fact that you spend more time on that site than just about anyone?” [excerpt]Actually, no, I hardly spend any time there.
“Have a nice day and until you actually post something with any merit, leave me alone and spread your Christian love to someone else.” [excerpt]Well son, since you say that I'm your senior, I think its only appropriate that I set you straight when you need it, and give you a nudge in the right direction every once in a while.
“Even morons like ______ agree that he's a poser.” --whattajokeCalling people morons isn't very nice, especially behind their backs where they cannot defend themselves.
“So... when JimRob figures that out, will he reinstate coyote?” --whattajokeI think the real question is, will Coyote loose his laurel wreath?
“PS. How the hell I'm not banned is beyond me.” --whattajokeAre you trying to get banned so you can get your laurel wreath?
Indeed, dearest sister in Christ! The way the paleontologist explains his finding may have little if anything to do with what the microbiologist has found in his lab. On the question of the spontaneous origin of life, for instance, Doron Aurbach, professor of chemistry at Bar Ilan University, Israel, has written (in Divine Action and Natural Selection, 2009):
We, the scientists, struggle on a daily basis with chemical reactions and experience their complexity, the difficulties in reaching the desirable efficiency, and the unexpected diversity if the products that chemical reactions may produce. Based on our daily experience with these reactions, we perceive the chemistry of life to be simply astonishing. Researchers have received Nobel Prizes for their success in producing natural products, where they had to design highly complex, multistage reactions, starting with kilograms of starting materials, and, at the end of a long and complex process, demonstrating the achievement of their goal with milligrams of pure materials. [In comparison, in] ... photosynthesis, each leaf of a plant conducts hundreds of simultaneous processes, all occurring at 100% efficiency, and milligrams of starting materials are converted by multistage processes to milligrams of desired products with no undesirable residues.My question is: If the origin of life can't be explained in this way — i.e., as the culmination of accidental reactions produced by chance — then why should we think the theory of evolution — itself based on accidental reactions produced by chance, culminating in mutations, which are then "selected" for fitness value — could fare any better?Many polymers that comprise living tissues such as proteins are composed of building blocks, or molecules, and, in the case of proteins, amino acids, which have the lowest symmetry possible. Such molecules are termed chiral and possess a property that is called optical activity (related to their interaction with polarized light). This low level of symmetry is of itself of signal importance in order to have proteins with very specific structures and active sites that can act as enzymes. However, all the usual syntheses of low symmetry compounds [in the lab] produce mixtures of molecules that are called racemic mixtures, which possess no optical activity. The production of optically-active molecules requires the so called asymmetric synthesis in which chiral, optically-active molecules must be involved. Here we have another chicken and egg situation: how did nature begin to produce chiral, optically-active materials that could then continue to direct most of the natural syntheses to produce chiral, optically-active materials?
Clearly, even as we better understand the chemistry of life, it does not enable us to suggest solid and sound routes for its spontaneous beginning. All this invokes our increasing wonder at the ingenious design of amazing, highly complicated and simultaneous processes that make life possible. It should be emphasized that the simultaneous manner of all the multistage chemical processes of life is crucial to its existence. The failure of a single system or a single reaction may, in most cases, lead to failure of the entire living system.
In conclusion, the origin of life cannot be explained by spontaneous, sporadic, accidental reactions that, by chance, crystallized into the amazing and inspiring chemistry of life that we are struggling to decipher.
As Aurbach puts it, "Giving sporadic mutations (in series) the ability to form functional organs is nothing but an absurd belief in the power of accidents to evolve into ingenious design."
Evolutionists list findings related to fossils, remnants of ancient animals, and the like in order to prove their theories. There is no question that our world has a history that is reflected by ruins and fossils, and it is clear from these relics, which have been found almost everywhere on earth, that there were species that lived during certain epochs and then disappeared. There have been many events of mass extinction of the flora and fauna of our planet.... There is strong evidence that the earth's climate has changed over the years, and that our planet underwent pronounced geological and geographical changes since its inception. However, do any of these findings really prove that there was macro-evolution, namely, processes whereby species developed and became increasingly more complex and sophisticated as the result of random, accidental genetic changes and mutations that were attenuated and selected by environmental constraints? Definitely not! Real science, true science, involves cycles of induction and deduction and can only be conclusive in relation to the present, not to the past.... Any conclusions related to the past, especially the prehistoric past from which we have no written documentation, are, by definition, speculative. Therefore, any scenario suggested as the history of our planet cannot really be proven. [Itals added for emphasis]Aurbach's point about the "speculative" is precisely the point I've been trying to make to atlaw, who evidently wants me to say how the findings of microevolution are capable of being extrapolated to the case of macroevolution. What I was trying to suggest is that this cannot be done in principle if what you want at the end of the day is science — not speculation, or the corroboration of one's blind faith in the efficacy of nature as a blind, chance process.
To conclude with another observation from Aurbach: "All the technological advances from which we benefit so much nowadays have only come about because nature is governed by rules that can be precisely and mathematically described. Hence, it is a great pity that science has been enlisted improperly by some groups to support invalid theories that describe reality as accidental."
Thank you so very much for your thoughtful, perceptive analysis, dearest sister in Christ!
Oops...
dt=dry
I just wrote on another thread:
My first degree was in chemistry, and though I no longer work directly in the field, it has been my experience that chemists and biochemists are among the least enthusiastic of scientists when it comes to believing that all life evolved from a single-celled organism. I'm probably in the minority here because I do believe that the facts support evolution, but, say (hypothetically), a seal evolving into a walrus is a long way from a microbe evolving into a human.
It's easy for a structural biologist to point to microbes with a spot sensitive to light and say, "Look, all eyeballs evolved from that tiny speck." From the chemical point of view, there is a vast difference in complexity. We don't have thousands of chemicals in our bodies just looking for something to do. Every chemical has its purpose. For example, it wasn't all that long ago that scientists did not understand the role that nitric oxide plays in the human body.
Um, I've never made anyone lose their faith. To the contrary, I have helped people keep their faith when they discovered that YEC and God's general revelation in his creation were incompatible. Read Glenn Morton's story for an example of what I've seen.
No, but if they told me that they had a hard time reconciling the Bible with science, I would show them that there are no conflicts. God's word cannot conflict with what God has shown us through his general revelation.
Now, tell me: If you knew a Christian teenager studying geology or astronomy in college who discovered that God's revelation in his creation is incompatible with the YEC position they were taught from childhood, how would you help them? Would you tell them not to believe their lying eyes and the evidence that God has given us in his creation?
Beautifully put, DallasMike!
I also believe that "the facts support evolution." My problem is that Darwinian macroevolution really doesn't explain anything. It's on the order of the structural biologist saying that because a microbe has a light-sensitive spot, this is the physical basis of the evolution of the eye. Well, fine. But HOW does this "spot" become an extraordinarily (and irreducibly) complex organ such as the eye — by chance assembly processes selected for "fitness" by a "Nature" that is itself constantly changing?
And the entire idea of "fitness" strikes me as a circular argument to begin with. For "fitness" is defined as what contributes to "survival value"; and survival value is defined as "fitness."
Seems better to me to try to understand what the "chemistry of life" is, rather than to spend one's life engaged in the defense of such circular reasoning. Maybe then we could get somewhere with problems such as the origin, speciation, and evolution of life.
Thanks so much for your excellent essay/post, DallasMilke — and for the link to the (rather daunting!) article on the role that nitric oxide plays in cases of hypothermia of the human body.
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.