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

Skip to comments.

Missing links that never were (part I)
Pravda ^ | 05.21.2009 | Babu G. Ranganathan

Posted on 05/23/2009 10:22:19 AM PDT by valkyry1

Does the recent discovery of a supposed 47 million year old fossil of a monkey furnish us with a finally discovered "missing" link? The monkey is fully-formed and complete, but it shares similarities belonging to various species. That doesn't qualify it to be a true transitional form or missing link.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There's nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e. "missing" links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different species as a basis for claiming a transitional ("missing") link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent. The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won't go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!

In many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or "missing") link, but these are not true "missing" or transitional links so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.

Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the "missing" link was found.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classify them as belonging to the same creature (even when there's no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case "Lucy" is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones.

Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they're not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that "Lucy" is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!

Some evolutionists cite the fossil of an ancient bird known to have claws as an example of a transitional link. However, there are two species of birds living today in South America that have claws on their wings, but even evolutionists today do not claim that these birds are transitional links from a reptilian ancestry. These claws are complete, as everything else on the birds.

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called "missing link" and "transitional" form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appearance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn't be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

The recent news about a footprint found to be 1.5 millions years as evidence for human evolution is based on circular reasoning. First, many don't realize the evolutionary assumptions involved in dating fossil layers, but that is another story. Readers who wish to pursue the subject may find the Pravda article "Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?" of interest. Many have wrongly believed that evolutionists use infallible scientific dating methods. Concerning the recent discovery of a 1.5 million year footprint, it is assumed that because humans did not exist 1.5 million years ago that this footprint, which evidence shows belongs to a creature who walked erect, must have belonged to a simian being that was in the process of evolving into a human. This conclusion, actually, is based on a whole series of assumptions.

Evolutionists claim that genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation. Another interpretation is that comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first Genetic Engineer!

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or reasons for why this is so.

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find billions of clear and indisputable transitional forms ("missing" links) in the fossil record (i.e. fossils of fish with part fins, part feet). Instead we find only a few very disputable "transitional" forms that even all evolutionists cannot agree upon.

To be continued…

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. from Bob Jones University with concentrations in theology and biology and, additionally, has completed two full years of graduate study at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Massachusetts. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ape; evolution; junkscience; missinglink; monkey; science
A great 2 part article expose on some of the assumptions, fallacies and deceptions evolutionists engage in to advance their beliefs.

Pravda was a good source for the article here because they are not on the FR Link Only or Deny Posting List.

1 posted on 05/23/2009 10:22:19 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

ping for your lists


2 posted on 05/23/2009 10:22:59 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Courtesy of Valkyry1.

All the best—GGG


3 posted on 05/23/2009 10:24:42 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

“Speak the truth and shame the devil on Pravda.ru forum”

I didn’t ever expect to read that!


4 posted on 05/23/2009 10:31:29 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out (click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Here is a generic missing link.
5 posted on 05/23/2009 10:32:31 AM PDT by JeepInMazar (Generic Website is real. Google it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeepInMazar

So I evolved from a website? :-)


6 posted on 05/23/2009 10:34:31 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

bfl


7 posted on 05/23/2009 10:38:12 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

the evos and their superfantastik evolutionism taffy puller machine...no matter what the ‘evidence’, they can stretch it, twist and pull to ‘prove’ their religion....


8 posted on 05/23/2009 10:43:29 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

The mixed up kind of science used by creationists make as much sense as Markov Chain versions of the Bible.


9 posted on 05/23/2009 11:05:42 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

I think there’s more ignorance than lying manifest in this article, but it’s hard to be sure.


10 posted on 05/23/2009 11:15:09 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

bookmark, thanks for what looks like an interesting read


11 posted on 05/23/2009 11:23:48 AM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State business, Red State heart. . . . .Palin 2012----can't come soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Here is the other article referenced in this article, regarding bad logic used to support evolution:

Are fossils really millions years old?

12 posted on 05/23/2009 11:31:00 AM PDT by UnwashedPeasant (Don't nuke me, bro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve

> The mixed up kind of science used by creationists make as
> much sense as Markov Chain versions of the Bible.

How about a rational, logical reply to the author’s points, rather than specious ad-hominem typical of the Left and their cynical manipulators?

Evolution, like “global warming” and “anthropomorphic climate change”, are “consensus” science, which is not science at all.

Ad-hominem remains the “scientific” method most esteemed by the consensus “scientist”.


13 posted on 05/23/2009 12:02:33 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

> I think there’s more ignorance than lying manifest in
> this article, but it’s hard to be sure.

Since your screen name mentions logic, let’s see you refute the author’s points with logic and reason, rather than specious ad-hominem.


14 posted on 05/23/2009 12:05:01 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Since your screen name mentions logic, let’s see you refute the author’s points with logic and reason, rather than specious ad-hominem.

Sure. But first of all, it's not an ad hominem to say someone is ignorant and/or lying. What would be an ad hominem is if I said something like, "The guy's an 'experienced Christian writer' with a degree from Bob Jones University--why should we credit anything he says about evolution?" But I didn't say that.

I don't have time to pick over every point, so I'll choose two:

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet....A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators.
Evolutionary science does not predict that there would be chimeras like that. Birds did not develop wings in order to fly--rather, they developed flying after they had feathered forelegs. Current thinking, I believe, is that feathers developed for warmth and long, muscular forelegs developed for climbing trees; once you have feathers and are up in a tree, you're on your way to gliding; and once you're gliding, you're on your way to flying. But the point isn't whether you accept that scenario or not; the point is that Babu is engaging in a classic straw man argument. It's a standard creationist technique: say "if evolution is true, x must have happened" and then argue against x, when in fact evolution doesn't claim x happened at all.

Number two:

[Lucy's] knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones.
This falsehood has been passed around creationist circles for 20 years now. An overview of why it's false and the way creationists continue to use it even though they've been told it's false can be found here.

I generously assumed that Babu doesn't know what he's talking about, which is why I said there was more ignorance than lying. There's always the chance, of course, that he's simply lying.

15 posted on 05/23/2009 12:50:51 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Thank you for the kind and reasoned reply.

> But first of all, it’s not an ad hominem to say someone
> is ignorant and/or lying.

Thank you for the correction, but it is ad-hominem without evidence.

> Evolutionary science does not predict that there would be
> chimeras like that.

My public school textbooks were filled with such. The development of the eye, the conversion from shrew to bat, the dino-bird, on and on. Perhaps those books were not written by scientists after all, which is what I came to suspect after I gave up on evolution.

> Birds did not develop wings in order to fly—rather, they
> developed flying after they had feathered forelegs...once
> you have feathers and are up in a tree, you’re on your
> way to gliding; and once you’re gliding, you’re on your
> way to flying.

I’m sorry, but this is laughable, much like the drawings I remember of the evolution of the eye. Indeed, there would have had to have been a chimera of some sort in between climbing and gliding, then gliding and flying. The genetic and structural framework to support these features are just too complex. And where did all the new genetic information come from anyway?

> But the point isn’t whether you accept that scenario or
> not; the point is that Babu is engaging in a classic
> straw man argument.

I concede this point, but you must agree that evolutionists use straw men of their own against the creationists.

> This falsehood [”Lucy’s” knee] has been passed around
> creationist circles for 20 years now. An overview of why
> it’s false and the way creationists continue to use it
> even though they’ve been told it’s false can be found
> here.

I will concede this point on behalf of the original author, who did not research the matter carefully enough.

However, here is a correction posted on the Website of the Institution for Creation Research.

“The statement was based on reports of Johnson’s public comments and the slides he used at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986, (see ‘Bible-Science Newsletter”, October 1987 pp 1-3), compared with a photo he published in his book Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind (1981) page 157 and a National Geographic article in November 1985, page 593.”

You can read the whole article at http://www.icr.org/article/was-lucy-ape-man/

Dr. Morris goes on to say, “it does not demonstrate human ancestry. The most that could be claimed for Lucy is that she was a chimp-like primate, who spent most of her time in the trees, who perhaps walked a little more erect than other tree-dwelling primates when on the ground. I would be willing to concede this point.”


16 posted on 05/23/2009 1:51:32 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Westbrook

talkorigins, your source, is an evolutionist propaganda site.


17 posted on 05/23/2009 2:53:31 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

I’ll tackle a couple other claims of the article (the first 3 paragraphs)...

“Does the recent discovery of a supposed 47 million year old fossil of a monkey furnish us with a finally discovered “missing” link? The monkey is fully-formed and complete...”

—Interesting, others are claiming it’s “fully lemur”, so it’s either fully lemur or fully monkey; at least they can agree that it’s not “intermediate”. :-)

“...but it shares similarities belonging to various species. That doesn’t qualify it to be a true transitional form or missing link.”

—Those other unamed species are, of course, lemurs.

“A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There’s nothing like this in the fossil record.”

—Like this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

Or if that’s too far developed, maybe this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

“The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won’t go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!”

—The bird appearances of the duck-billed platypus are completely superficial. The “duck-bill”, for instance, is not actually a bill or beak, and it doesn’t open to reveal a mouth. His mouth is actually underneath the “bill”. The protrusion is mostly soft material, while the duck’s bill is made of hard keratin. The both do use their “bills” for feeling around in the ground, which probably explains their similar shape.


18 posted on 05/23/2009 3:03:03 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Thank you for the kind and reasoned reply.

Likewise. Thank you for the correction, but it is ad-hominem without evidence.

I don't want to get bogged down in an argument about logical fallacies, but my understanding is that the ad hominem fallacy consists of trying to invalidate someone's argument based on who that person is. I didn't do that--I called the author ignorant based on his statements, not the other way around.

My public school textbooks were filled with such. The development of the eye, the conversion from shrew to bat, the dino-bird, on and on.

I'd like to see those. I can't even imagine how that would apply in the development of the eye--your books talked about something that was half an eye, half something else?

And I'm not sure what you mean by the "dino-bird." If you mean archaeopteryx, I'd say that we only know it's half-bird because we know that eventually we'd have birds. At the time, it'd just be its own "fully formed" creature. It's not a lesser dinosaur or an incompetent bird--it's just its own thing. Only from the perspective of time can we see that it was part of the transition from dinosaurs to birds.

Indeed, there would have had to have been a chimera of some sort in between climbing and gliding, then gliding and flying.

Yes--it's thought to look something like these:

As you can see, having feathers doesn't mean it doesn't have a functional arm. Like I said, we only call it a "chimera" because we know it's a stop on the way to birds. But it's a "fully formed," fully functional creature in its own right, with nothing that only halfway works.

Perhaps I shouldn't have introduced the word "chimera." My point is that many anti-evolutionists seem to expect an animal to have to grow wings from buds or something and then lose its arms, rather than just have its arms gradually become something capable of flight without ever losing their function for something else.

However, here is a correction posted on the Website of the Institution for Creation Research.

Good for them.

The most that could be claimed for Lucy is that she was a chimp-like primate, who spent most of her time in the trees, who perhaps walked a little more erect than other tree-dwelling primates when on the ground.

Okay, and humans are chimp-like primates who spend most of their time on the ground and walk a lot more erect than the tree-dwelling primates. Sounds to me like Dr. Morris has perfectly described an ape-human transitional.

19 posted on 05/23/2009 3:07:06 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1; Westbrook
talkorigins, your source, is an evolutionist propaganda site.

Thank you for providing us with such a clear example of the ad hominem fallacy.

20 posted on 05/23/2009 3:08:15 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
—Like this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

Or if that’s too far developed, maybe this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

Thanks! I didn't know about those guys--I didn't know there were such clear examples of fish with feet. They're cute!

21 posted on 05/23/2009 3:10:51 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Well I didn’t mean it that way, its based on my many readings of the site and checking what they say with other sources.


22 posted on 05/23/2009 3:38:47 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
> Thank you for providing us with such a clear example of
> the ad hominem fallacy.

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone else. I did not write this:


23 posted on 05/23/2009 3:43:26 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone else. I did not write this:

No, I know that. I only pinged you to my response because you had been pinged to the post I was responding to, and because you and I had been discussing the nature of the ad hominem fallacy.

Sometimes it's hard to know exactly what the etiquette of pinging someone should be, and I tend to err on the over- side.

24 posted on 05/23/2009 5:00:30 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; Westbrook
I don't have time to pick over every point, so I'll choose two:

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet....A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators.

Evolutionary science does not predict that there would be chimeras like that.

Then what would evolutionary science predict about transitionals?

Evos have made it more than clear enough that a parent organism is not going to have radically different offsrping so the jump from legs to wings isn't going to happen overnight.

So it must have taken time for them to develop. Then what would the transitional look like? What does the ToE predict? What would we expect to find in a transitional like that and why aren't there any fossils found of other than fully formed organisms? Surely the process of fossilization doesn't favor only distinct, fully formed organisms.

25 posted on 05/23/2009 7:43:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


26 posted on 05/23/2009 9:03:24 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
. Then what would the transitional look like? What does the ToE predict? What would we expect to find in a transitional like that and why aren't there any fossils found of other than fully formed organisms?

Did you read my later posts? Yes, it could be said that a dino-to-bird transitional would have half-evolved wings. But we only know they were half-evolved wings because we know what a fully evolved wing is. At the time, though, the animal had a fully functional feathered forearm. The point is, every organism is going to be fully formed in its time. It's just that over time, we can see it was on its way to something else.

To use the common comparison to breeding dogs: think about all the dogs in the line between the wolf and the chihuahua. They were all fully functioning dogs, but they were also transitionals.

27 posted on 05/23/2009 10:11:17 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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