"What was wrong with all the other fossils over the years? Why get so excited with this one?" Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum asked.
So let's get this straight. Those who reject evolutionary theory always complain, "There aren't enough transition fossils to 'prove' evolution", but yet when one comes along, the claim is, "What's wrong with all the other fossils; why get excited with this one?"?
What are you kidding me? Does no one but me see the double standard/goal post shifting here?
One lives in fear there is no god, the other works just as hard to prove there is a god.
“So let’s get this straight. Those who reject evolutionary theory always complain, “There aren’t enough transition fossils to ‘prove’ evolution”, but yet when one comes along, the claim is, “What’s wrong with all the other fossils; why get excited with this one?”?
Welllllll, there remains one definite missing link — between reality and the enthusiastic endorsements of this fossil as the Rosetta Stone of proof for evolution.
It would appear so, but no, there is no goalpost shifting.
The evolution skeptics understand that the fossil record can be aligned species to species to show a purported trajectory of inter-species evolution. What we dispute is that a series of random mutations is what had lead from one species to another species. We often see species 1, species 2, etc., ... species N. But even the adjacent species on that imaginary line are still too far apart: they do not appear to be a product of a single mutation. So finding one more species does not really help your case: what I want to see is a cloud of specimens with species 1 at one edge of the cloud and species 2 at the other edge. Until I see that, all I see proven is that we previously knew of N species and now we know of N+1 species and all have similarities.
Let me give you an example. In atmoshpere it so happens that some clouds are formed independently and also at times a cloud would move to a different spot. Let us say you and I have an argument: is the rain over my head today coming from the same cloud that rained over the other part of town this morning? To prove the latter, you need to show continuity, -- wet spots connected all the way from place A to place B. It is not enough to show that it rained over place A, place B and also place P and place Q -- that only proves that there have been four independent clouds. You need to show a continuum of wet spots, and you need to show a continuum of fossils separated by a single mutation.