Good luck with that. I've asked it several times and never gotten an answer beyond a tautological "something that's clearly midway between two other forms." As best as I can tell, they want something like these: 
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
I absolutely agree, which is why I support Theistic Evolution. Theistic Evolution theory contends that evolution was the process used by Got to introduce life, and ultimately man, into a dynamic universe. To me the argument whether God conducted a veritable symphony of processes culminating in man, or whether His method was instantaneous. The clue in Genesis is that God used six "days" for the entire process of creation instead of one instantaneous "big bang".
What's missing here is some meaningful description of "transitional fossil forms." What do creationists think they would look like? What do they want to see that they're not seeing?
In other words, if a creationist were to actually go into the field to look for transitional fossils (fanciful notion, I know), what would he or she be looking for?
What, if it were actually found, would cause the creationist to pull up short and say "uh-oh, this looks like evidence for evolution"?
“Well, let’s see....God Himself says He cannot lie. “
Are you equating allegory with lie? I’m not. God is certainly capable of allegory.
Are you suggesting that Catholics and Episcopalians reject the compatibility of evolution with faith?
[Evolution and the Bible are not incompatible]
Only if one doesn’t believe that the Bible tells the real truth.
Really? Can you point me to chapter and verse where the Bible says that evolution is impossible. No, I didn't think you could.
We have irrefutable proof that evolution is a fact. Have you not read of super bacteria which have developed resistance to antibiotics? That is evolution. There is no denying it. It is an event that has been observed in our lifetimes.
Do you not think that God could have created evolution as a natural means of developing life? God created gravity as a natural means of keeping people from floating off the earth, yet the Bible does not go into the intricacies of how gravity works. Does that mean that are billions of angels floating above us holding us down? Of course not. Similarly, the only thing that God told us is the who -- it was God who created life. He did not say how. We are not here by chance.
I have problems with the grand theory of evolution. But my problems are scientific, not religious. I do believe that God created everything "after its own kind." But what does "after its own kind" mean? Does that mean that he separately created horses and cows and monkeys? Or does he mean that he created mammals in general and then used a physical law that he created -- evolution -- to divide them into separate species? I don't know and neither do you. The Bible is totally moot on the point.
If we were shown absolute, undeniable proof that everything on earth evolved from a single-celled organism, it would not shake my faith one bit. It might shatter yours though because you're basing at least some of your faith on something that is not in God's word.
You're reading your own personal opinion into the Bible. That's not a good idea because you may be setting yourself up for a fall.
No, I believe that I’m correct.
“I reckon Buckie bugged...”
More terms of endearment, I see...
No, just went to bed, and now taking a break from proposal writing to rejoin.
“Umm. What does that have to do with the thread story - no missing links??? “
Do you really not see the connection? Why was the piece written? There’s a forest out there if you can just get past the trees...
“You’ll have to tell us which Catholics you’re referring to...the cafeteria ones like Nancy Pelosi, John Heinz-Kerry and Joe Biden or the ones that take Catholicism seriously? “
No, the entirety of the faith for whom there is the doctrinal ability to accept the allegorical nature of the bible.
My post was dripping with sarcasm—apparently I hid it very well...
So where does it say in the Bible that the solar system is at the center of the universe? Chapter and verse, please. If you can't provide it, you're just expressing an opinion and are not expounding God's word.
Why do you insist on reading things into the Bible that aren't there?
Please explain. (This is actually sort of true though. Sorta like bat and flying mammal legs aren’t so great for running, but the membranes between their crazily long fingers make a decent - but not perfect - wing.)
OK
I believe Darwin’s theory on natural selection goes something like this: A beneficial genetic mutation, which increases the chances of survival, is kept in the DNA and passed on. A genetic mutation that was not beneficial would lessen the chances of survival thereby increasing the possibility the non-beneficial DNA mutation was not passd along.
A species in transistion to another species, such as dinosaur to bird, would have to have incremental changes made to it’s DNA to transform the leg into a wing. I am saying the leg would become a non-beneficial genetic change during it’s transition long before it became a beneficial genetic change, a wing.
These are my thoughts. I am open to intelligent arguments disputing my thoughts. It will give me reason to study further.
I respect your right to have your own opinion. That is what makes America great.
On the other hand, I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior, Son of God, and have secured a place in His kingdom. In order to do this, I have accepted, by faith, that the Bible is 100% true. One does not have the choice of picking and choosing what is true within the Bible. It's all or nothing. . .
Mike, you wrote:
We have irrefutable proof that evolution is a fact. Have you not read of super bacteria which have developed resistance to antibiotics? That is evolution. There is no denying it. It is an event that has been observed in our lifetimes
That is not evolution. That is adaptation within a species. Evolution encompasses a much broader concept or theory. Adaptation within a species, as you are probably well aware, is a fact and very well documented. I will have to disagree with you that evolution is a fact though.
At least this article cites a couple of actual scientific sources.
Still misrepresents them, but it’s not all creationist citations any more.
Good luck with that. I've asked it several times and never gotten an answer beyond a tautological "something that's clearly midway between two other forms." As best as I can tell, they want something like these:
The armored mammoth at the Smithsonian has wheels.
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.