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
You’re a real glutton for punishment! I replied with references to all of the relevant the posts. It is indisputible: I said “allegory”, you substituted “lie”. Whine all you want, but the thread history is not in question. My position is evidently correct to even the most casual observer.
This, to all readers, is a microcosm of creationist science: “I say so, so there! Nya, nya, nya!”.
"No, He isn’t. God breathes TRUTH"
The word "lie" was never used. FOUR times you lied about me now.
This, dear readers, is the vapidity of evolution.
No fear. People can read and see for themselves. Almost everyone gets it.....
Is this all you’ve got? I’m bored with you now. The thread remains—you’re wrong, and you can’t cover it up.
Be gone.
You’re already “long gone”! HAHAHAHA!
I know...Just rubbing his nose in it!
I look forward to the reply to your challenge. Please keep me in the loop.
First, that's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at a measurement made with a human forearm and deciding it's not a precision measurement. That doesn't require interpretation or any particular position on the accuracy of the text. If I were an atheist who believed the Bible was a collection of fairy tales, I would still think your argument was ludicrous.
Second, believing that everything in the Bible is literally true would mean that one believes there really was a Good Samaritan and that King David really did get comforted by sticks, and it would mean one thinks that Revelation 12 describes a real woman who really wears the Sun for clothing and really rides a dragon. People who say that creationists and others who respect the authority of the Word are "reading it literally" are either putting up a straw man or have no clue what "literally" means.
Third, whether one interprets a piece does not reflect on its accuracy even slighty. One can interpret the author's meaning and intent when reading history, fiction, poetry, marketing copy--anything written, and the fact that one interprets it does not mean that one believes it to be allegorically true, literally true or completely false. It only means one is interpreting.
Actually, you are. If the bible were literally inerrant, it would have been much more precise in calculating the value of the ratio, or, more likely, would have remained silent on the matter.
Allegory is not fairy tale; please do not degrade the argument by referring to it as such.
Oh, and congratulations on the new arrival.
You really shouldn't discuss accuracy when you can't pull it off yourself. I never referred to allegory as fairy tale. I referred to allegory and to fairy tale, but did not equate them.
Actually, you are. If the bible were literally inerrant, it would have been much more precise in calculating the value of the ratio, or, more likely, would have remained silent on the matter.
Really, if the text said "the vessel was 3 and one-tenth cubits in diameter" you wouldn't be asking people "Does pi=3.1?" If it said "the vessel was 3 and three-twentieths cubits in diameter you wouldn't be asking people "Does pi=3.15?"
Sure you would. Just as surely as a cubit is a micrometer.
“I never referred to allegory as fairy tale.”
Yes, you did. My posts have all referred to allegory. The word “allegory” is routinely replaced by respondants by “lie” or some other equally inaccurate representation of my point—”fairy tale” in this case.
How can you adhere to the literal inerrancy of the bible if you can’t even demonstrate the “literal inerrancy” of your own posts?
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.