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
Just never forget that we have to see everybody as part of the field that is white for harvest. Getting out the Gospel is the important work, and only a massive revival led by His children calling for repentance will change things. God bless!
I hate to disagree with you (since I’m on the same side on the bigger issue), but God did give us allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. Fortunately, he was kind enough to label it as such in verse 24: “Which things are an allegory...”
It’s difficult to take anyone seriously that spews rubbish about a “minority Christian view” when they’ve consistently demonstrated they’ve got no grasp whatsoever on the very definition of the term (Christianity) they’re going on and on about, day after day, week after week.
You should seriously look into that Bucky!
Bucky's been asked to explain this too many times to count.
For instance, if Bucky's indeed a devout Christian, is it allegory to say that Jesus is the truth the light and the way and no man shall come to the Father except through Him, the Son...(nevermind fascist)...
Bucky's either woefully misguided or a fraud, but either way...
Bucky's just not worth the time.
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?
I’m not saying everything written is to be taken with a “hard” literal meaning; Jesus Himself gave us parables, which were allegorical...or even that Jesus is a door made of wood with hinges and a knob! Buck W. was asserting that the historical facts of the Bible were only allegorical. The passage you mention concludes with verse 31—”Then, brothers, we are not children of a slave woman, but of a free woman”, referencing the births of Ishmael and Issac, and how we are now free in Christ. This is common throughout the Scriptures, that is, historic events have allegory attached to them. Those allegories certainly doesn’t mean they aren’t facts, though.
We hear more and more of this and it is truly disheartening. How can people call themselves Christians if they believe the lie of evolution and discount God’s Word that he created man and woman? I have to wonder how much of the rest of the Bible they twist to match their mindset.
All of those fossils of transitional species!
All, all, what...three of them?
Yeah those...the three highly controversial ones.
them.
The proof is overwhelming!
It's, simply staggering!
It almost rocks my fundamentalist Christian young earth belief system.
almost
almost not
mostly not
If we're at the center of the universe, how is it that we're getting background radiation readings from the Big Bang event from light years away?
Are you implying that the Big Bang happened where the Earth moves the solar system around it (LOL!) today?
Oh, yea, God’s “Word”.
Man, woman and that talking snake. Throw in an apple too, and we have reality!
For an idiot, maybe.
I saw it. Without any specifics, it looks to be an exercise in "glittering generalites". Any point of disagreement can be counted in the "doubt" column. It's like playing games with statistics.
There are plenty of fossil examples of variations within a species. There are no fossil examples of species transition. Dinosaur to bird? It would be a bad leg long before it would be a good wing.
I have believed in a Creator for a long time but had always thought he used evolution to get us where we are. I relied on the study of others and their interpretation of the fossil record. A study of the available data to date has left me with the conclusion I was misled. I began to look into why I would be presented and taught information that was in direct opposition to the record God had left me. It is fairly simple and easily recognizible by even a simpleton such as myself. It is part of a much broader effort to dislodge God from our society. Sound too simple? Think I may be a conspiracy nut? Well, there is a “big picture” even if there are those who refuse to see it. Hold fast to your beliefs but read,study, compare, debate and digest the information with an uncluttered mind. Pray for clarity and, if sincere, it will be given.
“1. Flies developed wings 2. Birds like to eat flies. 3. Birds developed wings. It’s as simple as that.”
“You see no design flaw in this? Even creationism sounds more plausible.”
Because it is?
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.