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
So what does the bible say about heliocentrism?
Oh? I think Kurt Gödel would have something to say about that.
Your post clearly demonstrates that you don’t understand either.
1. Flies developed wings
2. Birds like to eat flies.
3. Birds developed wings.
It’s as simple as that.
Now you've done it! Here come the geocentrists! You can't prove that we're not at the center of the universe...
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.
“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...
They never have and never will.
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.
Which came first?
The fly or the maggot?
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.
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.
There is no center in an infinite universe.
Just like oil and water. Yup.
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?
“Your post clearly demonstrates that you don’t understand either.”
No. I’m an educated, rational Christian. I understand both very well.
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!
Absolutely. And he used the process of evolution to get us here.
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.
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.