Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin
ICR ^ | March 4, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 03/04/2009 7:16:11 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 150years; archaeopteryx; bohlinia; creation; darwin; evolution; fossilrecord; fossils; gerobatrachus; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; nationalgeographic; of; origin; sahelanthropus; species; transitional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-472 next last

1 posted on 03/04/2009 7:16:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 03/04/2009 7:16:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


3 posted on 03/04/2009 7:19:31 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

And by disputing and refusing to accept the transitional forms, the cretionists provide their own evidence to support the assertion.

4 posted on 03/04/2009 7:21:44 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Transitional forms or not, the case can be made that, wherever matter is organized in some form so as to perform a specific function, intelligent design may be reasonably posited as a factor. One may also reasonably posit that all of the same is merely an illusion; that organized matter is a product of unguided happenstance.

Which of these two points of view should enjoy federal subsidies?


5 posted on 03/04/2009 7:27:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Really, please explain


6 posted on 03/04/2009 7:28:07 PM PST by 11th Commandment (United States is a NOW a Terrorist Nation- we export abortion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The acceptance of every transitional fossil requires finding two more.


7 posted on 03/04/2009 7:28:23 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Only if one doesn’t believe that the Bible tells the real truth.


8 posted on 03/04/2009 7:28:30 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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?

9 posted on 03/04/2009 7:28:55 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible."

NO, they are not.

10 posted on 03/04/2009 7:29:12 PM PST by Longhair_and_Leather (The new presidential mantra--"Obama let babies die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

What part of the statement requires explanation?


11 posted on 03/04/2009 7:29:37 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Sure. The bible is allegorical. God gave us brains to figure out how he got us here. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.


12 posted on 03/04/2009 7:31:06 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Longhair_and_Leather

Yep—afraid so.


13 posted on 03/04/2009 7:31:44 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Good. I’ve been looking for this type of article.


14 posted on 03/04/2009 7:32:07 PM PST by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

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


15 posted on 03/04/2009 7:32:40 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

That's not undisputed, ergo it must be false.







Now consider: "The Bible is True"

16 posted on 03/04/2009 7:36:15 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. - D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There does not need to be a demonstrated slow transition from one species to the next. Evolutionary models work with the data available when both minor changes and major mutations occur randomly.


17 posted on 03/04/2009 7:37:32 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Am I correct in assuming that your post oozes sarcasm?


18 posted on 03/04/2009 7:38:01 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Sure. The bible is allegorical. God gave us brains to figure out how he got us here. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.

Allegory is bad. It leads to "thinking"

19 posted on 03/04/2009 7:39:02 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. - D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Of course! To an evolution fanatic any transition fossil never fills a gap between species.

Oh no, that just wouldn't do, would it?

Dear me, dear me.

*snaps fingers*

I know! I know! let's just call the transition fossil, a whole new species! Then we can whinge on endlessly about the two new gaps on either side!

Just in case they don't know it, we are aching aware of that little intellectually dishonest game. It manages to both be disgusting and boring.

20 posted on 03/04/2009 7:39:44 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 42 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Only if one doesn’t believe that the Bible tells the real truth."I

So what does the bible say about heliocentrism?

21 posted on 03/04/2009 7:41:19 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
That's not undisputed, ergo it must be false

Oh? I think Kurt Gödel would have something to say about that.

22 posted on 03/04/2009 7:41:56 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Your post clearly demonstrates that you don’t understand either.


23 posted on 03/04/2009 7:43:08 PM PST by Carl from Marietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

1. Flies developed wings
2. Birds like to eat flies.
3. Birds developed wings.

It’s as simple as that.


24 posted on 03/04/2009 7:44:08 PM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"So what does the bible say about heliocentrism?"

Now you've done it! Here come the geocentrists! You can't prove that we're not at the center of the universe...

25 posted on 03/04/2009 7:44:14 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Wow, Brian Thomas, MS* has really outdone himself this time. It would take me a full night to explain how wrong almost every one of his sentences is. He is amazingly obtuse and full of crap.


26 posted on 03/04/2009 7:44:38 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

“Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.”

Only if you consider a marriage of the perfect truth and a perfect lie “perfectly compatible”.

But that’s just me...


27 posted on 03/04/2009 7:50:47 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

They never have and never will.


28 posted on 03/04/2009 7:50:56 PM PST by ninergold3 ("Has it ever occurred to you that nothing occurs to God?" -Mark Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
"You can't prove that we're not at the center of the universe..."

The point I was trying to make is that faith trumps logic and science. The fact that the Genesis was an oral tradition in an ancient Hebrew dialect that lacked the capacity to express the yet to be discovered scientific concepts to explain the creation of man in anything other than abracadabra terms is lost on bible literalists.

29 posted on 03/04/2009 7:50:57 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

Which came first?

The fly or the maggot?


30 posted on 03/04/2009 7:52:40 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Our pastor has just started a study in the book of Genesis. He read, “In the beginning God created. . .” Then he looked at the congregation and said, “If you can’t wrap your head around this, then you are not going to understand the rest of the Bible.


31 posted on 03/04/2009 7:53:32 PM PST by ninergold3 ("Has it ever occurred to you that nothing occurs to God?" -Mark Lowry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ninergold3

The evidence certainly favors your conclusion. Indeed, the evidence for evolution gets worse by the day. How frustrating for them. Perhaps that is why the Evos are preparing the public to ditch Darwin in favor of a new God-denying evolutionary synthesis.


32 posted on 03/04/2009 7:53:37 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Buck W.

There is no center in an infinite universe.


33 posted on 03/04/2009 7:54:39 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
The bible is allegorical and evolution is not perfectly true. Is that better?
34 posted on 03/04/2009 7:59:27 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Just like oil and water. Yup.


35 posted on 03/04/2009 7:59:38 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ninergold3
"He read, “In the beginning God created. . .”

Did anyone then ask the good reverend if creation was specifically defined as an instantaneous, one-step process or if it left some room for debate?

36 posted on 03/04/2009 8:02:21 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carl from Marietta

“Your post clearly demonstrates that you don’t understand either.”

No. I’m an educated, rational Christian. I understand both very well.


37 posted on 03/04/2009 8:03:19 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I understand—I was being sarcastic. I have made similar points to yours in other threads that have, in fact, brought geocentrism adherents to the discussion!


38 posted on 03/04/2009 8:06:15 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ninergold3

Absolutely. And he used the process of evolution to get us here.


39 posted on 03/04/2009 8:08:42 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Buck W.

Actually, Copernicus was a heliocentrist, in the sense that he thought that the sun was close to the center of the Universe. It certainly gives a whole new twist to the badly misnamed Copernican Principle.


40 posted on 03/04/2009 8:09:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


41 posted on 03/04/2009 8:13:36 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Tsk Tsk, I wonder if Darwin is a fossil yet?
42 posted on 03/04/2009 8:13:38 PM PST by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

“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.


43 posted on 03/04/2009 8:15:01 PM PST by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

==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


44 posted on 03/04/2009 8:19:06 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill

LOL :o)


45 posted on 03/04/2009 8:19:31 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
I honestly don't want to get in a slap fight with another evolutionsist-atheist-conservative (a couple of oxymorons, there), just to point out the only fable I see is your presumption that the bible is strictly allegory. To sign on to evolution as a fact you have to be about as misguided as the folks who sign on to this... Worms ate my pre-historic skull!!!
46 posted on 03/04/2009 8:21:52 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“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.


47 posted on 03/04/2009 8:25:46 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

I’m not an atheist, but a devout Christian. Unfortunately, your minority Christian view chooses to define Christianity is a rather fascist way.


48 posted on 03/04/2009 8:27:29 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

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.


49 posted on 03/04/2009 8:27:52 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

‘Splain how fascism comes in, Chachi...

(Slap fight begins).


50 posted on 03/04/2009 8:28:46 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Welcome to the brave new world...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-472 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson