150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

ICR ^ | March 4, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

“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

1. Lloyd, R. Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory. LiveScience. Posted on Livescience.com February 11, 2009, accessed February 18, 2009.
2. Darwin, C. 1902. On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th Edition. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. 233.
3. Chalmers, J. Seven million-year-old skull 'just a female gorilla.' The Sun-Herald. Posted on smh.com.au July 14, 2002, accessed February 18, 2009.
4. Wolpoff, M. H. et al. 2002. Palaeoanthropology (communication arising): Sahelanthropus or 'Sahelpithecus'? Nature. 419 (6907): 581-582.
5. Gish, D. 1981. Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation. Acts & Facts. 10 (5).
6. Rose, K. D. and J. D. Archibald. 2005. The Rise of Placental Mammals: Origins and Relationships of the Major Extant Clades. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 87.
7. Weissengruber, G. E. et al. 2006. The elephant knee joint: morphological and biomechanical considerations. Journal of Anatomy. 208 (1): 59-72.
8. Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 175, 176.
9. Casselman, A. "Frog-amander" Fossil May Be Amphibian Missing Link. National Geographic News. Posted on news.nationalgeographic.com on May 21, 2008, accessed February 18. 2009.
10. Gish, D. 1995. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

[GodGunsGuts]

==We’re not the People’s Front of Judea, we’re the Judean People’s Front!

Wrong again. ICR and CRI stand for completely different Christian ministries. One was founded by Dr. Henry Morris, the other was founded by Dr. Walter Matin. One deals with Creation Science, the other deals with Christian Apologetics. Why am I not surprised that you and wormtongue can’t tell the difference?

[Gordon Greene]

“You’re done with me? Hardly! You lose.”

So let it be written, so let it be done. Your pronouncement of my “loss” means no more than your pronouncement of the Bible’s being allegory. And as for your personal definition of allegory to combat your detractors, freepers have access to dictionary’s my friend.

As for the “audit trail of my deception”, are you really that delusional?

You are a funny guy!

[Buck W.]

“Wrong again. ICR and CRI stand for completely different Christian ministries. One was founded by Dr. Henry Morris, the other was founded by Dr. Walter Matin. One deals with Creation Science, the other deals with Christian Apologetics. Why am I not surprised that you and wormtongue can’t tell the difference?”

Don’t you have a sense of humor at all? Doesn’t any creationist appreciate the funny side? You’re just like the dour, monochrome liberals. Evolutionists would make much better talk show hosts!

[Dog Gone]

What does it matter? The Evos keep putting forward transitionals and then taking them back. To be quite frank, so-called human evolution is a subjective mess, as many Evos admit.

The biggest lie out there is that are no transitional fossils, when there are thousands.

The typical creationist response to a new discovery is that it represents a new species, or some mutant, but it's certainly not a transitional fossil.

"It's just a monkey or gorilla or something that died out"

The same thing applies to all non-hominid fossils.

There is no fossil that could possibly be found that would fill the "missing link" void in creationst's heads. When you start from the premise that nothing can possibly be transitional, then nothing ever will be.

If you choose to pluck your eyes out, and then claim you can't see any evidence, you're absolutely right.

[Buck W.]

“And as for your personal definition of allegory...”

I never offered a definition of allegory, I assumed that was a given. Perhaps I was wrong.

And I thought you said you were done...

[DallasMike]

This coming from a guy who doesn’t even know the difference between expansion and inflation. LOL

Instead of intentionally misrepresenting me, you need to do a bit more research.

Inflation was a period lasting from 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang. It is considered to be a special period in the overall expansion of the universe that began with the Big Bang. From NASA:

The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bang theory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history.

...

Inflation was both rapid, and strong. It increased the linear size of the universe by more than 60 "e-folds", or a factor of ~10^26 in only a small fraction of a second! Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory since it explains the above puzzles so well, while retaining the basic paradigm of a homogeneous expanding universe. Moreover, Inflation Theory links important ideas in modern physics, such as symmetry breaking and phase transitions, to cosmology.

From Wikipedia, which does a pretty good of explaning inflationary theory:

While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation. Inflation is thus now considered part of the standard hot big bang cosmology.

In the simplest of layman's terms that I can possibly give you: Inflation was just a special split-second period in the overall expansion of the universe. You are claiming that inflation and expansion are two completely separate events. They are not.

There were other phases in the expanding universe as well. If you wish to read more technically advanced articles or advanced explanations, I will be more than happy to provide them. This isn't a hard science forum and I'm trying to keep things simple for those who do not have science backgrounds.

Finally, there are quite a few here who believe that the earth is at the exact center of the universe. They claim it is a biblical belief but no one seems able to provide chapter and verse. The universe is homogenous and isotropic. In other words, no matter where you are in the universe, it looks pretty much the same on a large scale.

[jimmyray]

We’re not the People’s Front of Judea, we’re the Judean People’s Front!

The Greeks shall inherit the earth

[Gordon Greene]

Havin’ too much fun... I’ll look for your defense of allegory and check back in.

See you soon!

[metmom]

Can you point me to chapter and verse where the Bible says that evolution is impossible.

God restricted the propagation of species to its own kind. However, the Bible doesn't so much say that evolution (depending on how you define it) can't occur (in so many words) as much as it didn't occur.

The Genesis account pretty much states that the different groupings and kinds were created in different creation events, some on different days.

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.

According to other evos, nothing in science is ever proved, FWIW.

Evolution is not a fact. Variation within species has been, and continues to be, observed. Bacteria are still bacteria no matter what they are resistant to.

Presuming that speciation, or macro evolution occurs just because variation within species is observed is only that, a presumption. Nobody has ever seen the major species to species changes that evolutionists claim has happened that resulted in the variety of life we see today. That is only deduced from the fossil record. That in no way establishes it as a *fact*.

I certainly believe that God allowed for wide variation within the kinds He created along with a greater variety of the number of kinds themselves. Many have gone extinct, that is true. However, between those two factors, if someone is going to misinterpret the fossil evidence to read more into it than what is there, that is nothing that I can help.

[Buck W.]

“The Greeks shall inherit the earth “

We have a winner!

[metmom]

Um, it wasn’t a *snake* that talked to Eve. It was a serpent. And how would you know what variety or even if it exists on the earth now?

It wasn’t necessarily an apple either.

[GodGunsGuts]

For all those interested in the kind of “Christian” and “Scientist” DallasMike is, please read the following.

DallasMike the slanderer:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#85

Here is where I correct DallasMike’s slander:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#97

Here is where DallasMike confuses inflation with expansion, declaring that inflation has been observed since 1929! As evidence, DallasMike posts a link that actually states just the opposite, and then uses it to call the creationist author of the original article a “liar.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#229

Here is where I point out that his own link says just the opposite, namely that inflation is not observed, and was postulated to fix problems with the Big Bang:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#237

But DallasMike keeps posting the same balderdash confusing inflation with expansion. I finally ask Mr. “Scientist” if he knows the difference between inflation and expansion here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#245

...and here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#246

And then DallasMike, the great Christian and “scientist” has the audacity to pretend like he knew the difference all along:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=251#257

And then after fraudulantly trying to claim that he knew the difference all along, he repeats the same claim (which he now knows is a lie) all over again further down the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?page=290#290

As you can see, I called DallasMike on his slander and dishonesty and it didn’t make the slightest bit of difference. No apology, no repentence, just more lies and (baseless) condescension. Therefore, I want nothing to do with DallasMike.

[DallasMike]

I try to stay civil and on topic.

From what I've seen, you certainly have. I went throught every post you made and every response given to you by others. The personal attacks came from other -- yet you are the one who is accused of making personal attacks. Amazing, isn't it?

[metmom]

You didn’t answer the question: are you, in fact, suggesting that there is something that God is not capable of?

Sure I did, but just to be more clear....I'm stating that there are things that God can't do. And it's based on Scripture. God Himself tells us here.....

Hebrews 6:17-19 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

[taxesareforever]

No, reality is Christ on the cross for even your sins.

[Gordon Greene]

"The bible is allegorical. That doesn’t mean that it’s not “true”."

OK, OK... here's what I've got...

Allegory [al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee] 1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. 2. a symbolical narrative: the allegory of Piers Plowman. 3. emblem (def. 3).

Synonyms: 2. fable, parable.

I've stated I have no problem with allegory itself. The bible is full of parables. The problem with your premise is exactly what you say is allegory and how you come about deciding what is and what is not indeed fable(see synonyms).

1. What possible spiritual purpose does it serve for God to give us allegory pertaining to our creation?

2. How much of the Bible do you actually believe is true?

3. There are specific instances of parables or allegory in the Bible. How do you personally determine which are and are not where it is not outlined?

4. Do you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven?

5. Did Jesus really die on the cross as a substitute for our sins?

6. Was Jesus really the Son of God (in the sense He was the ONLY begotten Son of God)?

I am really interested in your answers because if I'm missing something I'm always open to learning. I have made up my mind about God, but if I'm misunderstanding your point of view I don't want to mischaracterize you.

GG

[Gordon Greene]

BTW... You said you were working on a proposal. What line of work are you in?

[DallasMike]

Sure I did, but just to be more clear....I'm stating that there are things that God can't do.

Buck, metmom is correct. God is incapaple of lying. He is incapable of sin. Why? Because both those things violate his very nature. Spiritually speaking, it's like asking a human to breathe water and remain alive. We can't do that because it violates our nature.

Similarly, there are things that God can't do that violate logic. For example, God cannot create both an immovable object and an irrestible force.

[jimmyray]

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.

Wow. And you accept this as fact?

FWIW, The Hoatzin, a south american bird, has wing claws as juveniles. The Emu has wing claws on it's tiny, useless wings as well.

Concerning the teeth of the Archaeoteryx, there is an interesting article here with several quotes from non-creationists regarding it's alleged ancestry: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html#127

Also, several other extinct birds have been discovered that had teeth, see http://www.oceansofkansas.com/marsh73.html

Turtles, considered reptiles, do not have teeth. However, snakes, lizards and alligators do have teeth.

[Gordon Greene]

“Similarly, there are things that God can’t do that violate logic.”

I agree with you for the most part, but some of the things God does are beyond human logic or reasoning... like being the very essence of justice yet loving me so much He forgives me for being a lousy sinner.