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
Actually, Copernicus was a heliocentrist in the sense that he believed that the earth orbited the sun, and not vice versa. He and Galileo were persecuted for this belief by the church, the same church that today has no issue with heliocentrism. Whatever position he held regarding the solar system’s position in the universe is irrelevant.
“Which of these two points of view should enjoy federal subsidies?”
LOL! That’s really the point. Which myth should the feds subsidize as the “official creation myth” that we shall all be taught to believe?
The point is not that creationists deny transitional forms. The point is that outspoken Darwinists like Stephen J. Gould admit that the fossil record shows mainly stasis, combined with sudden, unaccountable explosions of new body plans. Gould himself rejected gradualism in favor of another untenable theory, “punctuated equilibrium” and the “colony principle”, in which small populations break away from the parent population, and come to inhabit a completely different habitat. The large population would remain stable over time, while the small one would easily show changes over time as mutations and natural selection worked their magic.
This scenario suffers from the usual shortcomings of the other Kiplingesque “Just So” stories invented by Darwinists: lack of empirical evidence, combined with internal logical absurdity. Regarding the latter, most mutations are injurious to a species, not beneficial, and small populations are fragile: a storm, an earthquake, a volcano, any big natural disaster, can wipe out a small population entirely. Additionally, while we can stretch our minds to imagine this scenario in one or two cases, the idea that punctuated equilibrium is the prime mechanism of evolution is unbelievable. Personally, I think Gould was slyly admitting to intellectual bankruptcy.
==Actually, Copernicus was a heliocentrist in the sense that he believed that the earth orbited the sun, and not vice versa.
Yes. But he also believed that the sun was at or near the center of the Universe, which places our solar system (and the earth) in a priveledged position.
==He and Galileo were persecuted for this belief by the church
You display definite gaps in your knowledge when you make such unqualified statements. I will be charitable and merely suggest you educate yourself by reading the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
LOL :o)
“You display definite gaps in your knowledge when you make such unqualified statements.”
I accept that as a compliment from someone who posts from AIG and CRI.
I’m not an atheist, but a devout Christian. Unfortunately, your minority Christian view chooses to define Christianity is a rather fascist way.
Read a couple more of your posts and my characterization of you may have been off a tick... still I disagree.
Honestly, though in some respects it does take all kinds.
G.
‘Splain how fascism comes in, Chachi...
(Slap fight begins).
No, it’s not. Genesis 2:7—”And Jehovah God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” You wanna believe that man comes from amoeba, mold, and chimpanzees, then you don’t believe Christ Himself.
Sorry—allegory.
“You wanna believe that man comes from amoeba, mold, and chimpanzees, then you don’t believe Christ Himself.”
I think you misunderstand Buck... when the Bible is simply allegory you are allowed to pick and choose what you in your infinite wisdom deem to be fact and what you believe to be fable.
By referring to me as an atheist only because I don’t subscribe to your narrowly drawn definition of Christianity. But then again, perhaps one can say that fascism is allegorical...
And don’t call me — whatever the hell that was.
If the bible is not allegorical, then you do not use the reasoning capability that God gave you, thus disappointing him greatly.
==I accept that as a compliment from someone who posts from AIG and CRI.
Don’t forget about CMI, Uncommon Descent, ARN, Discovery Institute, etc, etc.
BTW, did you read the AiG paper re: Galileo? I posted it for your edification. If nothing else, you will have a more nuanced understanding of what happened to Galileo.
“Sorry—allegory.”
I am so glad you’re on here to smugly pronounce what of the Bible is fact and what is in fact fiction.
How was it to walk with Jesus and His disciples... or was that all allegory as well?
Please! Save us the trouble of having to task God with the questions to which you already have the answers.
Good point. So what the would he say to 1 Timothy 3:16—”ALL Scripture is God-breathed”? In my limited wisdom, all means ALL.
“And don’t call me — whatever the hell that was.”
Chachi...
Alrighty then, Bubba.
It’s not a smug pronunciation at all. Do you not agree that Catholics and Episcopalians, who are fine with the allegory concept, are Christians? The real offense is the posting and subsequent defense of cartoonish pseudo-science that defies the most basic common sense and simple observation.
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.