Hello, Jurassic Park

[Tossica]

Ugzug reed gud.

[Lyion]

Except I'm not talking about creationism at all. I am not saying it's science. Hello? Are you reading our posts are just fervent to link to your usenet forum?

You are stating macroevolution is fact, of which I think enough of us have waved the bullshit flag and posted links to reputable scientists who do not agree with you that its safe to say its not the Law of Gravity, like you are trying to say it is. Link your usenet forum more, it still won't change the fact it's an opinion. I fully agree it has circumstantial evidence. That does not make it a fact as you keep repeating.

Also, one more time, there are no transitional fossils. I do not subscribe to your links and examples. Sorry. Also, if your claims were remotely true there would be billions of them.

Lets throw a few more questions you cant answer at you:

The dinosaur fossils that have been found are in extremely good condition for their supposed age and yet no transitional dinosaur fossils have ever been found. Where are they?

Again, show me a fossil of an intermediate creature. You can't.

[Rust]

Lyion said: There is no evidence of macroevolution.

Rust said: Look at the microevolution fossils... you're wrong

Lyion said: MACRO... MACRO MACROOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Rust said: You're not listening to me... here's 3 more links to microevolution proof

Lyion said: RUST! HELLO!?! M---A---C---R---O... MACRO evolution... MACRO, you idiot!

Rust pouts: Well if you're going to ignore the evidence of microevolution, I just won't link you any more examples.

Lyion said: ...

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level.

Synapsids to mammals is at the level of Class. So is reptile-to-bird.

Class is a higher phylogenetic level than species.

The transitional series from synapsid reptiles to mammals is obviously macroevolution.

Corollary: Ugzug is either unable to read properly or simply doesn't comprehend what he reads. He is however sufficiently flexible as to be able to fit a penis in his mouth while keeping his head firmly stuffed up his own ass. Bravo.

--R.

[Rust]

Despite your claims, all fossil species remain unchanged throughout their history. FACT

There is not one single example of a significant transition.

"This inconsistency has created a major problem for evolutionary biologists. Darwin and most subsequent authors including G.G. Simpson have held that most evolutionary transitions occur within established lineages by phyletic gradualism guided by natural selection. But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. Similarly, it is difficult to account for the greatly accelerated pace of evolution during periods of adaptive radiation. An alternative model of evolution, introduced by Niles Eldredge and Stephan Jay Gould in the early 1970's, more fully accounts for these same observations. According to this major conceptual breakthrough, rapid evolution is typically associated with speciation events that occur cryptically in small isolated populations, often at the edge of a species's geographic range." (Woodroff, D.S., Science (208) 1980 716-717).

It's amazing how you managed to use almost the exact same words as Woodroff did, isn't it? Almost spooky.

Almost that is, since he said 'most of', in critiquing phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium models of tempo of evolution. Obviously Woodroff's quote indicates he agrees that evolution occurs.

--R.

[Rust]

Also, one more time, there are no transitional fossils. I do not subscribe to your links and examples. Sorry. Also, if your claims were remotely true there would be billions of them.

Lets throw a few more questions you cant answer at you:

The dinosaur fossils that have been found are in extremely good condition for their supposed age and yet no transitional dinosaur fossils have ever been found. Where are they?

Again, show me a fossil of an intermediate creature. You can't.

Well, you could at least source your quote.

Dinosaur transtional fossils:

Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:

1. Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
2. Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
3. A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
4. A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.

Reference: Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.

Happy now? There's some dinosaur transitionals. Since you don't believe they exist anyhow, I'm not sure why you keep asking for them. I give you well known transitionals and you ignore them. Not the sign of an open mind. Next up you'll accuse Nature of being biased or something.

--R.

[Lyion]

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... php/id/839

Problems with Evolutionary Explanations of the Fossil Record
Introduction to the issue:

If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. The controversy over the fossil record has to do with whether or not expected evidence of such transitional forms can be found. If fish really did evolve into people, then there ought to be evidence of such a progression.

It should be noted that purely natural processes do not rest their feet solely upon evidence from the fossil record. For example, one might claim to have transitional fossil that led from some land-dwelling animal to the whale. However, if the fossil record indicates that the evolution was impossibly rapid, or the necessary change was beyond genetic limitations, or that it took place in the sort of populations which could never undergo large scale macroevolutionary change, then it might be possible to exclude common desent through purely natural causes, regardless of what fossils may or may not be found. In order for purely natural evolution to be the properly inferred explanation, not only must (1) key expected fossil transitions be found, but also (2) the amount of biological change must be mathematically possible given the size, reproduction rate, and mutation rate of the evolving population, the supposed time allowed for the change in the fossil record, and the rules of population genetics, (many of these characteristics may be dependent upon one another, but the point is that in the end, the numbers must add up), and also (3) all stages of intermediate macro- and micro- morphology of the transitional organisms must be conceivably functional and advantageous to survival.

If one of the above criteria is not met, then it is not possible that purely natural evolutionary processes could have done the job.

Creationist Hugh Ross, who believes that the universe and earth are on the order of billions of years old, states that the fossil record does exhibit some "transitional-looking forms". However, Ross notes that the rules of population genetics, biophysics, most importantly mutation rates would never allow for purely natural processes to evolve life as we know it1, 2. Thus, he claims that "God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones ... as part of God's plan to prepare Earth's environment for His ultimate creation on Earth--the human race.1" His rationale for this is not just that "'horizontal branches' ... are not support by fossil evidence" but also because "science [does not] offer any mechanism adequate to account for natural branching.2" Thus, fossils alone are not enough to make the evolutionary transition plausible, for an adequate biological mechanism to explain the transition also must be provided. Just because one claims to have a fossil of a "walking whale" or a "fish with legs" does not necessarily mean that the purely naturalistic evolutionary account is true or that we can't know that supernatural action and/or Intelligent Design weren't also involved in the process.

Transitional forms and Intelligent Design: Is it a "God-of-the-gaps" argument?

So how does Intelligent Design theory comes in to all of this? Well, in science, evidence against one theory does not necessarily count as evidence for another theory. In other words, just because transitional forms are not found, and evolutionary theory seems to be falsified, does not necessarily imply that it is justifiable to infer that the organisms in question were intelligently designed. However, there are 2 points which lend credence to the design inference in the many cases where expected transitional forms seem to be missing. 1) It is a possible prediction of some forms of intelligent design theory that transitional forms won't be found, thus causing Intelligent Design theory and evolutionary theory to postulate mutually exclusive predictions such that evidence against one could naturally count as evidence for another, and evidence for one would naturally count as evidence against the other. This means that the lack of transitional forms is not a negative argument used to prove intelligent design, but rather is a possible prediction of a theory of intelligent design. The famous "God-of-the-gaps" objection can thus be avoided. 2) The lack of transitional forms is one step in the above test of any given evolutionayr transition. William Dembski's explanatory filter shows that when all known naturalistic chance-law explanations can be ruled out, design can be justifiably inferred***.

The main issue.

Transitional forms are a prediction of naturalistic evolutionary theory and the question we shall be asking is, "are predicted transitional forms found in the fossil record?" In some cases the challenges to the mechanism for such evolution will also be discussed. Please note that this discussion will not deal with the question "is the fossil record the result of a single flood or millions of years of geological processes?" We will not be evaluating a "catastrophist" vs. "uniformitarian" position, although it is a very valid and important question, for proof of such a worldwide catastrophic flood presents a great challenge to purely natural evolution. That question, however, is beyond the scope of this discussion and for the sake of critiquing evolutionary theory on its own terms, this discussion will operate under the assumption that the geological and fossil record represent millions of years of time.

Before you start reading, if you’d like some good quotes from qualified scientists on this stuff, read through the IDEA Fossil Record quote collection or our "General Evolution of Life quote collection. Thanks and enjoy!

Punctuated Equilibrium

For a more complete account of punctuated equilibrium theory, we invite you to take a look at our "Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record" article.

The Rest of the Fossil Record: Are there transitional forms?

The Cambrian Explosion: According to a uniformitarian interpretation, first animals appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian Period, about 540 million years ago. Interestingly, within a 5-10 million year period (a relatively short period of time on evolutionary time scales, and many have said that the Chianjang sequence in China shows a time of 2-3 MY) all but one of the animal phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record at the same time without any fossilized predecessors (phyla is the second largest classification level of life).

This sudden and abrupt appearance of fossils in the fossil record has been dubbed by many as the “Cambrian Explosion,” as very diverse life-forms seem to pop into existence out of no where. According to evolutionary theory, animals had ancestors from which they evolved. Is this “explosion” of life consistent with an evolutionist interpretation? If these animals, which include some very modern (complex) shelled creatures, sponges, and jawless fish4 did have primitive evolutionary ancestors, where are they to be found in the fossil record? The answer is they aren’t anywhere to be found. Before the Cambrian Period, very few fossil having anything to do with modern phyla are found in the fossil record:



Figure above adapted from "On the Origin of Stasis" by Art Battsen


This lack of ancestors is confounded by the fact that molecular studies of the DNA differences of various animals predict that the basic lineages of animals, including many of these phyla, split apart long before the Cambrian Period5, 6 (please note that molecular studies have many questionable assumptions, but we will grant them in order to refute evolution on its own terms). For example, figs. 2 shows that Chordates (animals with a backbone) and starfish-type things (Echinoderms) supposedly diverged about 1 billion years ago:



Fig. 3 (above) has protostomes and deuterostomes, the most basic divisions of animals, supposedly splitting over 1.2 billion years ago, but there are no recognizable forms in the fossil record until they all suddenly appear about 540 million years ago. Why are there no fossilized ancestors? Evolutionists try to explain this away phenomenon, and give the following excuses for the lack of ancestral forms:

1. There were evolutionary ancestors before the Cambrian Explosion, however they were all soft- bodied animals and thus could not be preserved as fossils. The “Cambrian Explosion” is not actually the sudden evolution of animals, it just marks the first evolution of hard shell and bone parts which can be easily preserved.

Counter-argument: Obviously skeletons and shells are easier to preserve in rock than soft- flesh. However, this is a ridiculous argument because imprints of soft-bodied animals are very commonly preserved as fossil remains very commonly in the fossil record. Jellyfish, sea squirts, plants, sponges, and even bacteria are extremely common in the fossil record. A very good portion of the Cambrian Explosion fossils were soft-bodied animals, so why even argue that the soft-bodied predecessors couldn’t have been fossilized? Furthermore, much of the "Precambrian" rock, which would have been able to preserve these “missing ancestors” is actually very good rock for preserving delicate soft-bodied fossils. This argument is totally bogus.

2. The Precambrian ancestors existed, but were too small to be preserved.

Counter argument: Similar to my above argument, small animals are very commonly fossilized throughout the fossil record. Even in the Cambrian Explosion fossils, very small organisms are not uncommon. How can one argue that the size of the fossil makes it unpreservable? If the animals were there, they would have been preserved. If the animals were preserved, they would have been found. Since they are not found, the only conclusion is that the supposed ancestors were never there. Regardless, studies of the necessary predecessors shows that they probably were not small. The proposed common ancestor of the 2 basic animal groups (protostomes and deuterostomes), thought to have existed about 1.2 billion years ago5, had a gut cavity, regulatory genes, appendages (for locomotion or something else), a complex eye, and even a heart with a fluid system6! This is not a microscopic primitive life-form.

3. The evolution was rapid so transitional forms didn’t have time be preserved.

Counter argument: You should be on the lookout for any arguments such as this, because they try to explain the Cambrian Explosion without ever touching on the problem of the complete lack of ancestral forms. Just like punctuated equilibrium, it is explaining away the data, rather than explaining the data. Rapid evolution or not, it doesn’t make any difference. When you get to this point, why not consider the possibility that as the evidence suggests, there were not predecessors? Perhaps purely natural evolution isn’t the answer? Is divine creation never a viable hypothesis? Why isn’t it? If one says it isn’t viable because there’s no evidence for it, then in this case, I can certainly say the same for an evolutionary explanation.

Bats: There are no fossil transitional forms leading to bats and they basically appear in the fossil record as “modern” bats. According to Thewissen et al, “they [bat fossils] do not represent transitional morphology between quadrupedal (four-footed) animals and flying bats, and they represent animals nearly as specialized as their modern relatives7”. The Berkeley Museum of Paleontology reports that, “[the earliest complete bat] fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features ... [i]n fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat ... shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate. 8” A good discussion of problems with bat evolution can be found at “http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm”.



The earliest bat. Picture in link above adapted from ref. 8, the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology Website on bat fossils.


Turtles: Turtles are the same as bats. They pop out of the fossil record in the late Triassic without any predecessors or transitional forms:



According Cowen9, the earliest known fossil turtle (shown in link above) is from the Late Triassic, and it had "already evolved most of the derived characters of turles, and so tells us little about its ancestry." Picture above adapted from ref 9. which Cowen says is Courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, and Staatliches Museum fur Naturikunde, Stuttgart, West Germany.


Whales: Whales are actually one of the few cases where it is claimed that there are actually true sequences of transitional forms. The story goes that an extinct fossil mammal species called the “Mesonychids” started entering the water and evolved into an amphibious “archaeocete” one of which became fully marine and evolved into all the known whales and dolphins today.

Mesonychids ---> Archaeocete: Many evolutionists actually don’t think Mesonychids could have been an ancestor of Archaeocete, because they are too different. The only similarities lie in the skull shape and dental features but as one evolutionist wrote “there is little beyond certain general resemblances to support such a relationship10“. Others have claimed they were sister groups, not ancestrally related.

There is a growing faction in evolutionary paleontology and molecular biology that no longer believes that whales are even related to the Mesonychids as studies of genetic molecules show that “hippos are the closest living whale relatives”11. Assuming that whales did evolve from some lower form, the molecular data would place whales descending from a completely different group--the artiadactyls (even-toed ungulates), rather than the hyena-like carnivore mesonychians. Of course molecular studies are based upon many assumptions, but the point here is that the genetic data is at great odds with what paleontologists would like the fossil record to tell them. According to two experts, new fossil finds are “making it unlikely that whales are a desendant of [mesonychians]11” and “there is ‘considerable doubt’ that cetaceans are closely related to mesonychians”11. But can whales be connected to hippos? One of the same experts says, “it’s difficult to connect hippos with whales in the fossil record”11

Some have claimed that certain similar features between whales and hippos are further evidence of their close evolutionary relation. Apart from molecular data, both whales and hippos are primarily aquatic, nurse their young under water, and have internal testicles. Also, the hippo baby swims before it can walk. On the surface this appears convincing of their common ancestry, but the fossil record says otherwise. According to "The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life", whale fossils extend back about 45 million years, however hippos didn't come onto the scene until about 15 million years ago, and supposedly came from an extinct suborder of land mammals, the anthracoceres12. Since the pre-hippo anthracoceres were land-dwelling, they surely didn't have the above-mentioned aquatic characteristics of hippos and whales. If this, according to the evolutionists, is true, then these "aquatic similarities" between whales and hippos must be the result of convergence, not homology. We now have on our hands an example of extreme convergence, where both whales and hippos have supposedly independently evolved various similar, though highly complex characteristics of their aquatic lifestyles. This is now beginning to look like a good case for common design, by a common Designer, not evolutionary descent. Given the fossil record, one now wonders if the molecular similarities between hippos and whales really mean anything, or are they just the result of common design for a similar aquatic lifestyle?

Archaocete ----> True Whales: If whales are not descendants of mesonychods, then even the general origin of the Archaoecetes is a bigger mystery than it was before. However, it is claimed that a string of about 6 fossils supposedly connect an amphibious form to a fully marine Archaocete. The fossil record is so difficult to interpret that it is impossible to say these fossils appear in the proper order leading from the supposed amphibious form to the supposed marine form13.

An early alleged transitional fossil is often said to be Pakicetus. Pakicetus, however, is nothing more than 2 small fragments of a skull, which has an earbone somewhat similar to a whale, and a general shape reminiscient of that of a carnivorous land mammal, hardly a bonified transitional form:


Comparison of actual Pakicetus skull pieces found and reconstruction in the Journal of Geological Education, taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/pakicetus.gif.


Even Stephen J. Gould admits this fossil is far from adequate to count as a transitional form:
"In terms of intermediacy, one could hardly hope for more from the limited material of skull bones alone. But the limit remains severe, and the results therefore inconclusive. We know nothing of the limbs, tail, or body form of Pakicetus, and therefore cannot judge transitional status in these key features of anyone's ordinary conception of a whale.41"
Pakicetus seems to simply be far too inadequate to count as anything close to a real transitional form.

One of the main Archaocete fossils thought to been involved in the pathway to whales is Ambulocetus. The NAS actually sites Ambulocetus as one of its prime examples of a transitional form in its booklet against creationism14. It provides a very convincing picture of a what one evolutionist calls, a “walking whale15”. This organism was a supposedly swimming legged ancestor to the whale, but the necessary bones to confirm this characteristic of its lifestyle were never found:

"To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones ... belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing."16

Batten also notes that since only one tail vertebrate was found, it is impossible to infer a swimming habit similar to that of a whale (for the whale uses its tail and fluke extensively to swim) and that the presence of a robust femur and hoof indicate it was a “land-dwelling creature”16. Finally, Batten concludes that “[t]here are too many crucial parts missing to be sure what Ambulocetus is. Whatever it is, it is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of the whales.16" No transitional forms here, just interpretation:


Reconstruction of a supposed transitional form for whales: Ambulocetus. Figure above adapted from "A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus)"16 by Don Batten.

Stephen J. Gould41 and the National Academy of Sciences14 tout Rodhocetus as the final blow to any creationist attempt to explain away transitional whale fossils. yet the PBS Evolution series represented this fossil as nothing more than a skull.

A final fossil commonly cited is Basilosaurus, a complete fossil of a fully aquatic whale which had small hind legs. Yet many have suggested those "legs" aren't vestigial but played some role in copulation. Perhaps they even had a swimming function for the creature--given simliarities between whale flipper structure and the mammalian limb, they may very well have not been true legs, but rather swimming apparati.

But what is the plausibility of the evolution of Basilosaurus, or any of these fossils? As discussed above, the evolution of whales occurred very rapidly on an evolutionary timescale. Did these supposed transitional forms fit into that short 10 million year timespan Steven Stanley writes of3? No! Ashley writes that the just final two fossils of the supposed transition, Protocetus and Basilosaurus, differ by far too much to evolve in the allotted time:

"All protocetids were less than ten feet long, whereas Basilosaurus cetoides was over 80 feet in length, and Basilosaurus isis was over 50 feet. It has been calculated that, even in a rapidly evolving line, changes in size are usually on the order of only 1-10% per million years.13"

To go from 10 to 80 feet, according to this quote, would require much more than. 10 million years, and that is solely for the final 2 fossils in the transition. Furthemore, it authoritative paleontologist Barbara Stahl has speculated that it probably isn't even ancestral to whales:

"The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth made it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales"

(Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History, 1985, p. 489)

It would appear that no matter what fossils we find, here is an example where the evolutionary transition clearly did not happen because it COULD not have happened--the time allowed for it is simply too short. Hugh Ross, (mentioned above) believes that transitional-looking fossils do exist. However Ross is not constrained by materialist philosophy and is able to throw evolution out when the numbers say NO. Thus, Ross has heavily criticized whale evolution as it not only takes place over too short a timescale, but takes place in the sorts of populations which are least prone to evolutionary change: large bodies, long lifespans, worldwide distribution, and low fecundity. There is no mathematical way that whales evolved. Given that this is a case where we know they didn't evolve and yet have a couple of transitional-looking fossils, perhaps it is true that in other cases where we have transitional-looking fossils, it is possible that those organisms too did not evolve. Young-earth creationist Kurt Wise who received his PhD in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard notes that such "stratomorphic intermediates ... stand intermediate between the group from which they are descendent and the one to which they are ancestral--both in stratigraphic position and in morphology" but "each of these organisms appears to be a fully functional organism full of fully functional structures."39 Thus we see that although organisms sometimes carry a mix of traits which are shared by two distinct groups, the origin of those actual traits themselves remains a mystery. Given animals such as amphibians, and mammals such as the duck-billed platypus, bat, and whale which have traits similar to a variety of other very different organisms, it is possible that our theology allows for "mosaic" organisms which may appear like "intermediate forms" but really were created specifically to live the exact life they live. Perhaps when we see these "mixed-trait" or "mosaic" organisms what we are not looking at is evolution, but rather creation. We must always ask ourselves, "where did these traits come from?"

Finally, which Archeocete became the first whale? No one agrees. They are so different from whales (and there are no transitional fossils to connect) that evolutionists dispute over which one actually gave rise to all cetaceans (whales).

Finally the supposed pelvic bone of the whale is often quoted as supposed evidence of its evolutionary history. Whales obviously do not walk and have no legs, so why do they have a bone where the pelvis might normally be? Carl Wieland reports that the pelvis is really “a bone in whales ... which is some 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, ‘but unlike the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column.’”27 If it can even be called a pelvis, this argument assumes that just because an organism has a pelvis, it must be used for walking. As it turns out, the whale pelvis is used during whale copulation, as it allows for male penis erection. Clearly, not a useless organ.

Much of this information was taken from 3 good articles on the web at "http://www.trueorigins.org/whales.htm", "http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp”, and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp

Origin of Fish and Amphibians: The earliest reported jawless fish in the fossil record are found near the early-middle of the Cambrian Explosion with absolutely resembling a fossil ancestor4. The fact that such a complex organism as fish seem to pop up at the very beginning of the animal fossil record is nothing short of a huge challenge to a naturalistic evolutionary account. The finder of the fossil, Simon Conway Morris, though not necessarily a creationist, has reportedly recently become a Christian. Various evolutionists who have debated with creationists have conceded that the origin of fishes is a major mystery as far as their naturalistic evolution is concerned"
"Duane Gish [a creationist] finds from reading Alfred S. Romer's 1966 treatise, Vertebrate Paleontology, that mainstream paleontologists have found no fossil record of transitional chordates leading up to the appearance of the first class of fishes, the Agnatha, or of transitional forms between the primitive, jawless agnaths and the jaw-bearing class Placodermi, or of transition from the placoderms (which were poorly structured for swimming) to the class Chondrichthyes, or from those cartilaginous-skeleton sharklike fishes to the class Osteicthyes, or bony fishes [cites Gish's earlier book] ... The absence of transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution. Even Chris McGowan's 1984 anticreationist work, purporting to show "why creationists are wrong," makes no mention of Gish's four pages of text on the origin of the fish classes. Knowing that McGowan is an authority on vertebrate paleontology, keen on faulting the creationists at every opportunity, I must assume that I haven't missed anything important in this area. This is one count in the creationists' charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere."29
For further references, see this figure, showing the lack of fossils to document the alleged evolutionary history of fishes:


Figure above adapted from Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, by Robert Carroll, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p 349. Carroll adapted his figure from Nature vol 361, by Forey and Janvier.

OK, so everyone seems to admit that fossilwise, fishes are a big problem for evolution. But the controversy over fish arises when people begin to claim that they evolved into land-dwelling animals such as amphibians. A very small number of fossils are purported to be the true “fish with legs”.

What sorts of fish are said to have supposedly evolved into amphibians, and where did they come from? At least two major groups have been purported as the ancestors of amphibians: the lungfish and the rhipidistians (similar to the coelocanth). Arthur Strahler admits that both of these two groups themselves appear without any ancestors:
"Neither, says Gish [a creationist], is there any record of transitional forms leading to the rise of the lungfishes and the crossopterygians [a group within "rhipistidia"] from the lobe-finned bony fishes, an evolutionary step that is supposed to have led to the rise of amphibians and ultimately to the conquest of the lands by air-breathing vertebrates. In a series of quotations from Romer (1966), Gish finds all the confessions he needs from the evolutionists that each of these classes appears suddenly and with no trace of ancestors."29
Why are there two groups competing to be the alleged ancestor of amphibians. The answer is that both groups share vague similarities with tetrapods, but are also fundamentally incompatable with being the ancestors, though each for different reasons. Evolutionists have sought to look elsewhere (i.e. to the other incompatable group) for ancestor answers. Basically, the lungfish have something resembling the right breathing apparatus (for they can breathe in air, though their lungsacs are quite different from tetrapod lungs) but not the bones or morphology. The crossopterygians are said to have something vaugely resembling the right bones (and even then, it's a stretch), but lack any internal organ structure which one would expect from the ancestor of the first air-breathing organisms. A good example of why amphibians certainly didn't come from the crossopterygians and how evolutionary predictions failed to materialize can be found in what happened after the discovery of the first living coelocanth.

Ceolocanths, thought to be a descendant of the crossopterygians, had been well known from the fossil record prior to their discovery, and were thought to be very close relatives of the supposed rhipistidian ancestors of tetrapods. Thus, when news came out in 1938 that a recently living coelocanth had been discovered in south Africa, scientists were eager to study its morphology (Bringing Fossils to Life" by Donald R. Prothero also has a good account of the history of coelocanth discoveries). As one scientist recounts, "Great things were therefore expected from the study of the soft anatomy and physiology of Latimeria ... it was expected that some insight might be gained into the soft anatomy and physiology of ... the workings of a tetrapod ancestor31". However, it turned out this internal morphology did not fit at all with that was expected from the alleged ancestors of tetrapods:
"the modern coelocanth shows no evidence of having internal organis preadapted for use in a terrestrial environment …The vein that drains its wall returns blood not to the left side of the heart as it does in all tetrapods but to the sinos venosus at the back of the heart as it does directly or indirectly in all osteicthyans except lungfishes. The heart is characteristically fishlike…"30
Crossopterygians don't have the right organs, and their bones only vaguely resemble tetrapod limbs. Lungfish are able to breath somewhat in air (albeit using an organ very different from the tetrapod lung), but their bones are not what one would expect from the alleged ancestors of the first walking animals. So what's it gonna be? Bones or breathing? You can't have both, and you barely have one. Have we really concluded that there were ancestors?

But wait, what if there was some "fish with legs" fossil out there? Wouldn't that give us some hope? Unfortunately, regardless of how much we speculate, there are no fossils of fish with legs. One biologist said, "we still do not have any really intermediate fossil forms between fishes and tetrapods (we are getting closer, with the description of _Panderichthys_ and _Elpistostege_; see later)32". He ends by saying, "we are free to argue vociferously about the identity of the group of fishes that must be the tetrapod ancestor32". In other words, when it comes to hard proff, evolutionists are left with only speculation and inference regarding their ancestors of tetrapods.

One commonly alleged intermediate fossil, Ichthyostega, is said to have been related to the frog. After looking at Ambulocetus above, we already know the high amount of interpretation which goes into the analyzation of these fossils, however this fossil appears very amphibian like and not very fishlike. Duane Gish, a creationist who commonly debates evolutionists over the fossil record, says “Ichthyostega has the feet and legs of an amphibian. The pelvic girdle is very large and firmly attached to the vertebral column”17. It’s clearly not a fish and has very a amphibian frog like look to it:


Icheyostega skeleton and reconstruction above. Ichthyostega skeleton taken from "http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/ichthyostega/ichthyostega.html" and small drawing from, "http://www.exploratorium.edu/frogs/mainstory/index.html".

Of all of the other supposed transitional fishes, only Acanthostega is found as anything close to a complete fossil that can be truly analyzed. While it first off looks impressive as a transition--it has a body for swimming and four well-developed clear legs--upon later inspection it appears that this animal too is an amphibian. The main noted similarity to fishes is the notochord and possible internal gill slits18 (many living amphibians also have gills, though they are external). It is also said that:
Acanthostega was similar to its later descendants, the higher tetrapods, in having a pelvic or hip bone that is big enough to be attached to the vertebral column. In fishes, this attachment doesn't exist, or is very small, whereas in tetrapods, this attachment is very well developed, to help anchor the vertebral column to the main support elements, the legs.19?--the link died!
Compare the reconstruction of Acanthostega to some of the living amphibians in the link below, they are almost indistinguishable:


Acanthostega reconstruction in figure above. Fig. adapted from http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v28.html (unfortunately this link is now dead and the article appears to have been removed), and amphibian diagrams taken from Ref. 3, pg 128).

One biologist said that Acanthostega and Icthyostega, "had short but massive limbs of the basic pattern of subsequent tetrapods.33" Another says, "Acanthostega had many fish-like characteristics it did have legs and feet rather than fins"18. But why did these limbs evolve, supposedly? In the PBS Evolution series, it is claimed that the aquatic Acanthostega developed limbs so it could have an advantage running out of the water to escape predators. However, there's a tradeoff: limbs are not as good for swimming as fins are. Why would a fishlike creature begin to develop legs which themselves inhibit their ability to swim away from predators? There simply is not a Darwinian scenario whereby it is advantageous for an aquatic creature to develop limbs for organisms with poor fins for swimming would quickly get selected out by predatation over swimming organisms--long before true tetrapod limbs like Acanthostega had (see above quote) could develop on their own. Given that Acanthostega had true limbs, it seems that the missing links...are still missing. Despite this alleged transitional fossil which bears a striking resemblance to many living forms, the origin of the defining characteristics of tetrapods, the limbs, is still an unsolved mystery to evolutionists.

At this point, it would be proper to note that given a creationist model, it is likely that God created some animals to live both an aquatic and terrestrial lifestyle, and perhaps Acanthostega is one of them We have many examples of modern amphibians which are designed to do just that. The fact that animals turn up in the fossil record resembling living forms does little to convince one that amphibians evolved from fish, or that these are necessarily good examples of transitional forms.

Amphibian to Reptile Transition: This alleged transition is pretty much non-existent in the fossil record. According to vertebrate paleontologist Robert Carroll,
"The earliest known amniotes [i.e., the first reptiles] are immediately recognizable as members of this assemblage because of similarities of their skeleton to those of primitive living lizards."28
"The early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specific ancestry has not been established."28
In other words, Carroll is saying tha they don't know where reptiles (first amniotes) came from. Take it for what you will, but creationist lawyer Phillip Johnson notes that with regards to anyone claiming that reptiles are descended from amphibians, “No satisfactory candidates exit to document this transition.”20 Johnson also notes that number of developmental difficulties are presented with an amphibian trying to become a reptile:

"Amphibians lay their eggs in water and the larvae undergo a complex metamorphosis before reaching the adult stage. Reptiles lay a hard shell-cased egg and the young are perfect replicas of adults ... [n]o explanation exists for how an amphibian could have developed a reptilian mode of reproduction20"

Not only do the differences between reptiles and amphibian dictate that this transition faces immense obstacles, but it is seems that his is clearly a necessary but missing link in Darwin’s theory.

Reptile to Mammal Transition: The Reptile-Mammal transition is also claimed to be a complete fossil transition--so complete and convincing that Stephen J. Gould even termed it the "Crown Jewel" of the fossil record. The thinking goes that a major group of reptiles called the Synapsids had a subgroup called the Therapsids which turned into what are called the "mammal-like" reptiles, the Cynodonts, which eventually became true mammals. It is claimed that changing skull bones and locomotio-related morphology show the transition from a reptilian to a mammalian form. Let's take a look at this transition to see just how convincing it really is. Fortunately, some experts have had a few things to say about this transition. The proposed reptile --> mammal transition: Anapsidia (most primitive reptiles) --> Synapsida (Pelycosaurs (Sphenacodonts)) --> Synapsids (Therapsids) --> Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)) --> early Mammalia --> modern major Mammal groups:
Anapsidia (the most primitive reptiles) --> Synapsidia:
“The ancestors of mammals [synapsids as a group] are identified from the same horizon and locality as the earliest conventional reptile, Hylonomus”.34
Synapsida (Pelycosaurs (Sphenacodonts)) --> Synapsids (Therapsids):
“The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.”34
Synapsids (Therapsids) --> Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)):
"Two much more advanced groups of carnivorous therapsids, the therocephalians and cynodonts, appear in the Upper Permian of Russia and southern Africa. We have not established the specific origin and interrelationships of these groups. They may have evolved separately from primitive carnivorous therapsids." 34
Synapsids (Therapsids (Cynodontia)) --> Mammalia
“The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”35
“[we] cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals.”34
Early Mammalia --> Modern major mammal groups:
"It is not yet certain when the malleus and incus became incorporated into the middle ear, but the grooves on the medial surface of the dentary that indicate their position of attachment in early Jurassic mammals are missing in Upper Jurassic genera [read: actual transition of reptilian jawbones into mammalian middle ear bones is undocumented].”34
"The vertebrate lower jaw, for example, is composed either of several separate parts and joined to the skull by the auricular, as in reptiles, or -- as in mammals -- consists of a single bony element, the dentary, which takes on the function of articulation with the skull. Slow, smooth transitions between these qualitatively opposing structures taking place during postembryonic developmental stages, when the jaw mechanism must be able to function, are inconceivable. To be sure, we recognize in the reptilian lineages that lead to mammals a gradual, quantitative reduction of the articular and of the other individual bones of the lower jaw, paving the way for the transformation and bringing the two types closer together. However, the fundamentally decisive, final step -- the complete disappearance of these bones or their transformation into elements of the auditory area -- must have taken place discontinuously, suddenly, between one individual and the next, during an embryonic developmental stage."43

"Since the Theria [marsupials & placentals] and the Atheria [monotremes] separated from each other before the changes in the middle ear had taken place, these two major groups must have evolved mammalian auditory ossicles independently. This is a most surprising fact” 36
"[T]here are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." 37

Let's take a look at the hard data with the evolutionary inference.


Diagram of the alleged reptile to mammal transition

It can be seen that this is nothing close to a smooth transition, and that millions of years worth of alleged evolution and morphological change are nothing less than nonexistent. Is there any reason to believe that mammals are connected through ancestry to reptiles? There's a lot of inference going on in this picture. Phillip Johnson notes that at either end, there is much dispute as to which organism is actually the ancestor. A few skulls also say nothing about the enormous biochemical changes required to go from a cold-blooded to a warm-blooded creature. The thermoregulation system of an organism is tightly woven into many aspects of its biochemical design. Changing it through step-by-step Darwinian mutations is very hard to imagine.

Reptiles to Reptile Dinosaurs: You've probably never heard this before, but it just so happens that evolutionarily speaking, nobody has any idea where the dinosaurs came from. The major dinosaur groups appear in the late Traissic fossil record without any recognizeable ancestors. I'll try to find a quote for this.

Dinosaurs to Bird: The dinosaur to bird transition constitutes what is probably the is most well-known supposed evlolutionary transition. It is mainly based upon fossils of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs. Theropod dinosaurs were bipedal and small much like a bird. Their skeleton structure still differs remarkably from that of any bird, but their skull shape is not completely dissimilar from that of birds. How similar are theropod dinosaurs to birds? Evolutionist paleontologist Larry Martin, a challenger of the dinosaurs-do-birds theory, was quoted as saying that such comparisons "are riddled with characters based on mistaken anatomy21" and such theories of dinosaur origins of birds are a good example of "garbage in, garbage out"21.

Archaeopteryx is said by most to be a true bird, and is usually thought to be related to the ancestors of true birds. It was an animal that had some very birdlike features, including wings (although Archeopteryx uses different bones than birds to support the wings), feathers, 4-toed feet, and a wishbone (although it is up-side down in Archeopteryx) and reptile-like qualities such as teeth and claws (although one modern bird of prey has claws), and a reptilian bony-tail. Clearly a decent mix of bird and reptilian features.

Archaeopteryx is fairly well established as at least 7 specimens as well as a clear feather imprint have been found at a site in Germany. Other birdlike-dinosaur fossils have also been reported from other places, and I hate to say this, but recent events force me to ask for the use of a little caution when looking at these fossils--or any fossil for that matter. On the cover of National Geographic in July of 1998 was featured the Proto-Archeopteryx, also called the Archeoraptor. This feathered dinosaur-like creature was based upon a fossil find in China, but has since been demonstrated to be a fake through computer tomography. National Geographic recanted the use of this fossil in its March 2000 issue, however the question remains, what if there are other fakes we don't know about? Are all fossils fakes? I don’t think so and I don't want to think so! Should we be aware of the possibility of them in the future? To say no would be irresponsible.

Some evolutionary scenarios based upon these supposed bird-like-dinosaur-like fossils have claimed that they evolved feathers, hollow bones, and wings, before they actually flew! The evolutionary origin of flight thus remains a complete mystery, despite all the talk of feathered dinosaurs. Regardless, I personally would call these few clearly mixed-trait organisms mosaic forms. There are many living forms with interesting mixes of characteristics such those designed to live life both swimming and walking and breathing air and water (amphibians), mammals that swim (whales), lay eggs (platypus), and fly (bats), birds that swim (penguins), and even fish that "fly". Even among the dinosaurs it is clear there were swimming, flying and walking reptiles. Nobody would call these living mixed-trait animals true transitional forms. I call them mosaic forms, under what I call the “Mozart Hypothesis”, because Mozart created symphonies which often had clear patterns but would suddenly go off in a burst of clear creativity. God seems to have distributed various traits among organisms in a regular fashion, but also in a random and beautiful pattern throughout animal life. Is Archeopteryx the fossil proof of evolution? Phillip Johnson writes,

"Archaeopteryx is on the whole a point for Darwinists, but how important is it? Persons who come to the fossil evidence as convinced Darwinists will see a stunning confirmation, but skeptics will see a lonely exception to a consistent pattern of fossil disconfirmation.20"

But what did Archaeopteryx come from? Given the similarities to therapod dinosaurs, it is usually claimed to be a nice clean relative of the therapods. The catch? These therapods are only known from one locality--the Yixian formation in China, and according to the radiometric dates, the Therapods are "at least 20 Myr younger than Archaopteryx"38. To give an analogy, that's sort of like saying that the first apes came from modern humans (which appeared out of no where 25 million years ago and then disappeared).

Other Problems...Those who wish to see birds coming from dinosaurs may do so, but those who seek a very strong challenge to such a theory have amply justified counterarguments.

Evolutionist paleontologist Sankhar Chatterjee has found what appears to be a fossil bird, Protoavis, in Late Triassic strata--at the same geological period as the appearance of the first dinosaurs22. This fossil appears to have more features in common with true birds than Archeopteryx did. Given that it appears in the fossil record at the same time as the earliest dinosuars, then it seems highly unlikely that birds are descended from dinosaurs. In other words, if an almost true bird existed with the first dinosaurs, how can it be said that birds are descended from dinosaurs? As one evolutionist paleontologist puts it, "[t]here’s going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face."23


The fig. above shows the Protoavis as reconstructed from its preserved remains. Fig adapted from http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/lev ... light.html"

If you've taken any evolution classes, then at this point you might be asking "Why haven't I ever heard of this fossil?" The reason is that Protoavis isn’t generally accepted by the paleontological community because many have complained that its fossilized remains are too fragmentary to be sure exactly what it is. Many have also questioned its status as a bird because no feathers have been found on the fossil (although it does have clear quill knobs for flight feather attachment on its wing22). These reasons are secondary, however, and I think that a NOVA Southeastern University website explains the real reason that the Protoavis hasn’t been generally acknowledged by palaeontologists: “accepting Protoavis as a bird turns much of the dinosaur family tree on its head24”. They thus predict that “much better fossils would have to be discovered before Protoavis is widely accepted as an early bird.24” In other words, accepting Protoavis would pose a great challenge to the precious dinosaur-to-bird transition and thus Protoavis isn’t going to make it on its own until it is absolutely proven by a very complete fossil. However, if I employ the same paleontological standards applied to reconstruct Ambulocetus (fig. 6), the “walking whale15”, then I think I could make a pretty good case for accepting Protavis as the “early bird.”

Of course evolutionist palaeontologists reject Protoavis for good reasons! As evolutionists, it leaves them with a nearly 70 million year time-gap without any fossils resembling birds, and no transitional fossils leading up to Protoavis (presumable the first bird)! In evolutionary scenarios where there is no possibility of supernatural intervention, this is a highly undesireable option. Protoavis implies that birds pop up at about 220 Ma without any recognizeable ancestors or transitional forms, disappear for about 70 million years, popup with some dinosaurs, then disappear again, and finally reappear in their modern form about about 70 Ma. Evolutionarily speaking, this is very strange, and might even be said to challenge a uniformitarian interpretation of the fossil record. Thus, in a sense, paleontologists ignore Protoavis because it poses such a strange an incredible challenge to any evolutionary scenario for the origin of birds, not just to the traditional dinosaur-birds theory.

To throw a final bone into the problems with reptile-bird evolution, an ancient reptile called Longisquama, found in Krygyztan, Russia in the 1970's, has recently been re-analyzed and posed as a challenge to the traditional dinosaur-to-bird theories of evolution25. The fossil basically looks like a lizard with feathers, and like Protoavis, was found in strata of about the same geological period as the first dinosaurs. It is interesting because it had feathers which are extremely similar to birds in many fashions:

"Longisquama's appendages have a central shaft with narrow ribs that extend out to the edges, roughly comparable to barbs on a feather ... near the spine, the shafts have wide, tubular bases, similar to the hollow calamus of modern feathers21"

"[the] preservation of a follicular, calamuslike base in Longisquama's appendages is consistent with a developmental pattern heretofore known only to avian feathers25"

For the evolutionist, the big question now is: are these feathers the result of common ancestry, or convergent evolution? If they are "homologous" (i.e. Longisquama evolved into Archaeopteryx which was related to the animals that evolved into birds) then there should be evidence of such a fossil transition. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, they are then left with a 70 million year time gap between which there are no suitable fossils to connect Longisquama with Archaeopteryx. If the feathers are the result of "convergence", then Longisquama is not closely related to Archaeopteryx (thus removing the fossil problem stated above), however, evolutionists must now face the possibility that the feathers evolved independently twice--a highly improbable scenario. To summarize, Longisquama presents evolutionary palaeontologists with the following two bad evolutionary options:

1. Claim that Longisquama is a direct ancestor of the birds (including Archaeopteryx). In this way, the feathers on Longisquama are ancestral to the feathers on birds, which are supposedly descended from Archaeopteryx which descended from Longisquama. The only problem is that there are absolutely no fossils documenting the hypothetical evolution of Longisquama into Archaeopteryx from 220 Ma to about 150 Ma. This 70 million year time-gap needed to connect Longisquama with Archaeopteryx faces such a dramatic lack of fossils that it would leave the evolution of birds completely undocumented, and without any evidence that birds actually evolved naturally period.

This idea has other problems as well. As far as Longisquama evolving into birds goes, Feduccia, who co-authored the paper on Longisquama said, "I can easily imagine avian evolution going through a Longisquama-like stage21". Note the word "imagine" here, it's a key word because it reveals the methods being used to promote evolutionary theory here. Longisquama looks nothing like a bird (apart from its extremeley birdlike feathers), would require innumerable changes to turn into a bird. It is in no way a step towards a birds.

2. Claim that birds still came from dinosaurs, but then Longisquama is in now way an ancestor of birds. Since Longisquama boasts feathers extremely, if not exactly similar to those of birds, then the evolutionist has to wake up each morning trying to understand how feathers could evolve twice independently. This might not sounds like a very improbable thing on the surface, but the fact is that the Longisquama appendages and bird feathers are so similar, that it is very unlikely that they have completely independent origins. Since this option excludes the possibility that the similarity is the result of common ancestry, the only explanation is what? Dare I say it--a common Designer?

Let's kill two birds with one stone, and throw out both naturalistic theories on the ground of a complete lack of evidence for one, and high improbability for the other. Then let's consider the possibility that was some Intelligent Design was involved here. Perhaps the Designer placed avian-like feathers on two very different organisms. Perhaps very similar bird-like creatures were created separately and independently? Given that there is no good evolutionary explanation for the origin of birds, is it wrong to hold the hypothesis birds didn't evolve naturally? The dinosaur-bird theory may be promoted to the public as the most solid piece of evolutionary theory. However, in the end it is still based upon philosophy, and a presupposition of evolution. Garbage in, Garbage out. Given a pecular lack of fossils to clearly connect dinosaurs to the first birds, and also to connect the supposed dinosaurlike birds (such as Archaeopteryx) to true modern birds, this theory is not without its own problems which must be overlooked as a precondition for its acceptance.

Birds as a group: Despite all the talk of dinosaur fossils leading up to birds, there is actually a huge gap (40-50 million years) in the fossil record between the time of the supposed bird-like dinosaurs (i.e. Archaeopteryx) to the appearance of the first true birds. At supposedly about 70-80 million years ago, almost all modern birds groups appear without any direct recognizable evolutionary predecessors. As seen in the following figure (adapted from Ref. 5), major and minor bird groups almost totally lack transitional forms:



Mammal History: Apart from the whale, the evolutionary fossil changes leading to almost all other mammal groups are generally not even claimed to exist. Similar to the Cambrian Explosion, paleontologists call the appearance of mammals in the fossil record something like a “Mammal Explosion.” Major and minor groups appear without any recognizable predecessors (please note that even many evolutionists admit that many of the first fossil appearance dates shown are highly questionable).



Why should we believe they evolved?

The Horse:One of the most popular examples of evolution in the fossil record is from the horse. “Early” horses are small and 3 toed, while horses today are usually large and 1 toed (a hoof). Even if evolution is going on, the earliest horse fossils found are mixed with fossils of modern looking horses and almost all are within the breeding limits of modern horses. In fact, one professor was led to state:
"The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. In the reality provided by the results of reserach it is put together from three parts, of which only the last can be described as including horses. The forms of the first part are just as much little horses as the present day damans are horses. The construction of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series"
(Prof. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWE Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1954, pp. 551-552)

A very simple mutation is all that would be required to change the toe numbers, making this at best a great example of microevolution (i.e. change within a species), not macroevolution. From the very beginning, a horse is a horse, of course.

However, it is interesting to note that when looking at the alleged record of horse evolution, evolutionists have felt more comfortable admitting the state of the rest of the fossil record:
"Although the fossil evidence for organic evolution of a few organisms, such as certain molluscs and the horse, is fairly substantial, other fossil evidence is very fragmentary.
(Stern, K.R. 2000. Introductory Plant Biology. McGraw Hill, NY., pg. 265)
Next time you see the beautiful series of horse evolution, "so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers"40, think again about what it really means.

Plants: Plants have what paleontologists call a very “poor” fossil record. Or do they? Soft algae fossils are thought to be found as far back as 600 million years ago, so it is clearly possible to find plants if they are there. However, all major groups of plants appear in the fossil record without recognizable transitional forms between one another, as see in the following diagram:


The above diagram taken from "The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life" By David Lambert and the Diagram Group (1994), pg. 43.


Within the most familiar group of plants, angiosperms (flowering plants), as seen in fig. 14A below there is no fossil evidence that any transitional forms within angiosperms or predecessors of the entire group ever existed:


The above diagram taken from "The Origin and early diversification of angiosperms" by Peter R. Crane, Else Marie Friss, & Kaj Raunsgaard Pedersen in Nature, vol 374, March 2, 1994, Pg. 27-33., pg. 43.


Obviously there are many other animals which could be discussed! We have completely left out of the discussion all major dinosaur groups, trilobites, lizards, salamanders, crocodiles, sharks, all major fish-types, butterflies, spiders, deer, giraffes, cattle, pigs, aardvarks, tree shrews, rabbits, cattle, antelopes, rhodents, elephants, rhinoceroses, tapirs, camels, llamas, pangolins, sloths, sea cows, primates and echidnia, platypus all of which appear without anything resembling a transitional form whatsoever!:



There are countless other extinct fossils which also provide no hints to their “ancestry.” These are just the beginning. What's going on here? Force-fitting family trees from the fossil record is like having a thousand puzzle pieces, of which only couple barely fit. Maybe evolution and common ancestry isn't what the puzzle is supposed to look like. If not, then there is no natural explanation for "the origin of the species." Thus, science would be forced to think in non-naturalistic terms, which is something it does not allow itself to do becuase it is pre-committed to a naturalistic worldview. Be it right or wrong, the living groups and the fossil record defy a natural explanation. Of course anyone precommitted to a philosophy of naturalism can still hold out in faith and believe that natural explanations will one day explain the lack of evidence for common ancestry.

The lack of transitional forms is often explained away by biologists who claim that the fossil record is very incomplete and that someday we will find the transitions which support evolution. Paleontologists (at least the honest ones) have long realized that the fossil record is actually understood quite well and it is unlikely that the missing links are the pure result of incompleteness. If you have a friend or biology teacher who puts faith in the incompleteness of the fossil record, you can show them what a great leap of faith it is.

The idea of a collector’s curve is often used in biology and paleontology to determine what percentage of “what’s out there” has been found. As new fossil finds turn up fewer and fewer new species, it becomes more and more likely that you have found just about all there is in the fossil record to find:



For the most part, this is the case with the entire fossil record. It would appear that the fossil record is very complete, yet there are few, if any possible transitional forms.

References Cited:

1. How Speciation "Rules" Rule Out Darwinism. By Hugh Ross. Facts for Faith, Quarter 2-2000, pg. 56-57. Published by Reasons To Believe
2. Can Science Test a "God-Created-It" Origins Model? Yes! By Hugh Ross. Facts for Faith, Quarter 2-2000, pg. 47. Published by Reasons To Believe
3. The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven Stanley, Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, 1981. Pg 93-94, 128.
4. San Diego Union Tribune, 5/4/99, "2 half-billion-year-old fish-like fossils found" and also in "Catching the first fish" by Philippe Janvier; Nature Volume 402 Number 6757 Page 21 - 22 (1999)
5. Evolutionary explosions and the Phylogenetic fuse, in Tree, vol 13 no. 4 by Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey.
6. Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology, Science, vol 284, June 25, 1999. By A. Knoll and S. B. Carroll.
7. Thewissen, J. G. M., and S. K. Babcock (1992). The Origin of Flight in Bats, BioScience, May, v. 42 n. 5, pp. 340-345
8. UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology Website on bat fossils: "http://www.UCMP.Berkeley.EDU/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html"
9. History of Life. Richard Cowen, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1990. Pgs. 268 (bat), 302 (turtle).
10. Evolution of the Vertebrates 3rd ed. by Edwin H. Colbert, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980. Pg 329.
11. New Views of the Origins of Mammals, (a report on the Intenrational Symposium on the Origin of Mammalian Orders, July 21-15, 1998, by Dennis Normile, Science, vol 281 Pg. 773-774.
12. The Field Guide to Prehistoric Life by David Lambert & the Diagram Group (1994). Published by Facts On File: New York.
13. The Overselling of Whale Evolution by Ashley L. Camp. Also at "http://www.trueorigins.org/whales.htm".
14. Science and Creationism, a view from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd edition), Nat Acad Press, 1999. Pg. 20. At "http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/"
15. Fossil evidence the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales. Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T. and Arif, M., 1994. Science, 263:210–212.
16. A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus), by Don Batten, Creation Ex NihiloTechnical Journal, 8(1):2-3, 1994. Also at "http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp".
17. Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997, pages 37-41 (Skeptics Forum)
18. Acanthostega gunneri at "http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/re-acanthostega.html"
19. Acanthostega, Leading the Way to Land by by Eugene S. Gaffney at: 'http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v28.html"
20. Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, Intervarsity Press, 1993. Pg. 77, 81.
21. Feathers, or Flight of Fancy? Newsfocus article by Erik Stokstad. Science, vol 288, Pg 2124-2125.
22. "Fossil bird shakes evolutionary hypothesis," Nature 322:677 (1986).
23. 10 Anderson, Alan, "Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx's Perch," Science, p. 35, 5 July 1991.
24. "The Origin of Birds", from the NOVA Southeastern University Website at "http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1090/W14-ORIGIN_OF_BIRDS.htm"
25. Nonavian feathers in a Late Triassic Archosaur. T. D. Jones, J. A. Ruben, L. D. Martin, et al. Science vol. 288, pgs. 2202-2205.
26. The Origin and early diversification of angiosperms, by Peter R. Crane, Else Marie Friss, & Kaj Raunsgaard Pedersen. Nature, vol 374, March 2, 1994, Pg. 27-33.
27. The strange tale of the leg on the whale, Carl Wieland Creation Ex Nihilo 14(4):16-19, Sept.-Nov. 1992. At "http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp"
28. Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York. Pp 193, 198
29. Arthur Strahler's anticreationist book, Science and Earth History -- The Evolution/Creation Controversy Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987
30. Stahl, Barbara J. "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.148, 146
31. P. L. Forey in_Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B_ (1980) 208:369
32. Keith Stewart Thomson [Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University], in "The origin of tetrapods," _American Journal of Science_ (1993) 293-A:58, 39)
33. Robert L. Carroll, "The Primary Radiation of Terrestrial Vertebrates," _Annual Review of Earth Planet Science_ [1992] 20:47, 45
34. Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York, Pg. 361, 397, 377, 398, 395.
35. Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Bones of mammals' ancestors fleshed out," Science, Vol. 212, 26 June 1981, p.1492.
36. Kermack, D. M. and K. A. Kermack. 1984. The Evolution of Mammalian Characters Kapitan Szabo Publishers. Washington, DC.
37. Eldredge, N., 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, pp. 65-66.
38. "Cretaceous age for the feathered dinosaurs of Lianoing, China" in Nature, July 1, 1999, Vol 400 pg. 60.
39. "The Origin of Life's Major Groups", by Kurt Wise in "The Creation Hypothesis", J.P. Moreland editor (Intervarsity Press, 1994), Pg. 227.
40. "

[Lyion]

In regards to kathleen turner:

http://www.alternativescience.com/talk. ... itions.htm

"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils"

A criticism frequently levelled against Darwinism is that there are no transitional fossils linking one species with another. Darwinists strongly reject this charge and the talk-origins "FAQ" by Kathleen Hunt entitled 'Transitional Vertebrate Fossils' is perhaps the most robust defence of this issue from a Darwinian point of view.

Hunt begins her "FAQ" by drawing a distinction between transitional fossils that show a 'general lineage' and those that demonstrate 'species-to-species transition'. The latter she defines as 'a very fine grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event.'

This is a courageously unambiguous definition and one that leads any rational person to expect that Hunt will then present evidence for such a 'fine grained sequence' that documents an 'actual speciation event'. Unfortunately, however, that is not what is presented in her "FAQ".

Take, for example, one of the most important and earliest transitions that Darwinists claim took place, that of primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates and rays. This is the evidence that Hunt actually offers us: (I have highlighted certain words in red)
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays

* Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
* Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.

GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.

* Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
* Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
* Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
* Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
* Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
* Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.


Notice that, where we are promised a 'fine-grained sequence documenting an actual speciation event,' what we are actually given is conjecture and suppositions like:-

'. . .clearly derived from

'. . probably not ancestral, but gives a remarkable picture . .'

' . . shark-like fins . .'

' . . Probably ancestral . .'

' . . more advanced features but retains primitive features . .'

' . . a very early . . . '

Notice that these and similar frequently-used phrases are not scientific terms, They are undefined Darwinist code words, used to suggest or imply that there is strong or direct scientific evidence of a relationship -- other similar phrases are found throughout the "FAQ", such as 'mammalian tendencies' ' and 'bear-like features' Other handy terms and phrases used to explain fossil features that don't fit the Darwinist theory include 'vestigial' and this truly magnificent one, 'Another early mustelid, but has some rather puzzling traits that may mean it is not a direct ancestor of later mustelids.' Puzzling, indeed.

In every case, these terms are used without any evidence to support them other than the trivial fact that there is some physical resemblance -- the argument from homology. But as pointed out elsewhere, if you relied on homology as a guide you would conclude that the human foot had evolved from the human hand, or vice versa -- something we know cannot be true.

Moreover, on top of all these weasel words, Hunt actually admits from the outset that there is a gap in the fossils and adds, without a trace of irony,

'So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.'

In which case, one is bound to ask, Then what the Dickens is this description doing in a "FAQ" purporting to give concrete, species-to-species examples of transitions between jawless fish and sharks?

What is true for jawless fish is true for every single species and every single 'transition' on Hunt's list. And the reason is the same in every case. It is because when a convinced Darwinist looks at the fossil evidence and talks of 'transitions' he or she means something quite different from what any ordinary, objective reasonable observer means. So what exactly does a Darwinist mean by the word 'transition' and what does an objective reasonable observer mean?

Darwinists believe that one species turns into another species through a process of genetic mutation combined with natural selection. This is necessarily a gradual process, one that happens over the generations. So that if you examine the offspring of any particular generation, it will not seem so very different from its parents. But if you examine the offspring distant by, say, one hundred generations, or one thousand generations, or ten thousand generations from the original species, then you will see a major difference.

But when it comes to evaluating fossils, looking for this difference, there is a difficulty that doesn’t exist with living species. You can tell whether living creatures are members of the same or different species by carrying out a laboratory test (such as artificial insemination) to see if they are physiologically capable of breeding. If they are so capable then they belong to the same species; if they are not, they belong to different species. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to apply the breeding test to animals known only from their fossils.

It is also possible to sequence the DNA of living or recently dead creatures and make a comparison of their DNA to see how closely related they are. But again, DNA testing (of the 'Jurassic Park' kind) is not available for fossil animals.

What this means is that there remains only one valid scientific test that would enable an objective observer to claim that one fossil is related by descent to an earlier fossil and that is an unbroken (or practically intact) chain of evidence linking the earlier and later fossils.

It is sometimes said that this demand is for an impossibly high standard of evidence -- like expecting an archaeologist to find an intact tomb of Caesar or Cleopatra with their personal diary beside the body. The reality is somewhat different.

Three-quarters of the Earth's land surface is covered with sedimentary rocks. A great proportion of these rocks are continuously stratified where they outcrop and the strata contain distinctive fossils such as sea urchins in the chalk and ammonites in many Mesozoic rocks. The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing indisputable signs of gradual progressive change on the same basic stock, but above the species level (as distinct from subspecific variation).

Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic evolution - but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion with a straightforward fossil sequence from successive strata. Yet there are so many billions of fossils available from so many thousands of strata, that the failure to meet this modest demand is inexplicable if transitions have taken place in the way Hunt describes.

It ought to be relatively easy to assemble not merely a handful but hundreds of species arranged in lineal descent. Schoolchildren should be able to do this on an afternoon's nature study trip to the local quarry: but even the world's foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world's greatest universities at their disposal.

This is the reason that a genuinely objective observer says there is not a single transition known. And when Darwinists assert that there are many such transitional fossils what they really mean is that they have found isolated fossils that look as if they are intermediate between one species or another ( 'probably', 'shark-like' 'tendencies', 'mammal-like') -- therefore, they must be evidence of transitional species, because Darwinism predicts such fossils.

Or they mean that they can find limited physical variation occurring in a true fossil line of descent (shells getting a little longer or a little shorter) and try to claim that this amounts to 'speciation' -- just as they do with living varieties such as the peppered moth or Darwin's finches.

This is a kind of circular evidence -- evidence by argument -- that would not be permitted in any other university department or in any other branch of science. Yet it is not only tolerated in Palaeontology, it is actively taught and encouraged.

What then is the scientific status of the detailed schemes of descent that Hunt and other Darwinists have drawn up over the past century?

When you have before you a massive amount of data, especially data that is generically similar, it is very easy to perceive patterns in that data that look like 'sequences'. All that is necessary is to take the data that does not fit your 'sequence' and file it away in a drawer labelled 'Not yet decided', 'status unknown' or simply 'unsolved problems'. In reality, if the data in the file drawer were added to the so-called sequence data, any objective observer would quickly see that there isn’t a developing series but a mass of contradictory details.

This pitfall entraps scientists constantly. In the recent past some Israeli professors of mathematics have published a book asserting that the names of twentieth century people can be found encoded in the Bible -- and so they can, if you select the data to fit your theory.

Of course, this is not to deny the sincerity or integrity of the scientists who sincerely believe they have found such evolutionary sequences -- just as the Israeli professors sincerely believe they have found Adolph Hitler in the Bible.



Conclusion

My recommendation to those responsible for maintaining the talk-origins "FAQ":-

This "FAQ" should be returned to Kathleen Hunt and she should be asked to remove from it all conjecture, baseless assertions and guesswork based on trivial superficial similarities.

Wherever she wishes to assert a relationship between two species, she should be asked to produce direct evidence (as distinct from conjecture) first that they really are two species, not merely varieties, and that there is an unbroken chain of intermediate variation of the type predicted by Darwinism in the intermediate strata between them.

She should be asked to remove undefined cod-scientific words (such as 'mammalian tendencies' and 'shark-like' ) and replace them instead with terms defined according to established scientific principles.

Whatever is left after this process is the sum total of human knowledge on transitional fossils.

[Rust]

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/839

Well you win on volume because to do a line-by-line deconstruction of that page is more than I'm prepared to do here.

I am amused by your attitude towards reading the talk.origins FAQ archive as 'biased' and yet quoting ideacenter.org which is just as 'biased'. Well, to each his own biases. At least I went and looked at your site - they're more honest than you are - their list of links includes the talk.origins FAQ archive. We got 4 stars and a nice writeup.

****

Talk.Origins

Creation-Evolution Stance: Naturalism. Talk.Origins is a "Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins." The site has many resources and is geared to argue against Creationism, particularly Young Earth Creationism. However many of their faq's are quite informative and unbiased in nature (though others aren't so unbiased). It also has a great list of links to other creation or evolution sites.

So instead of abusing everyone's eyes, I'll just repoint you to the above site here. People can go and read about the transitionals Lyion so desperately wants to ignore. Likewise the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (that's MACRO, Ugzug, not MICRO, ok?).

Lyion has staked out his position. He disagrees with modern paleontology, biology and evolution. And he's not going to accept any evidence I put here that contradicts his presuppositions. So I only hope I've interested some onlookers into finding out more, because Lyion's a closed book.


--R.

[Langston]

Lyion said: There is no evidence of macroevolution.

Rust said: Look at the microevolution fossils... you're wrong

Lyion said: MACRO... MACRO MACROOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Rust said: You're not listening to me... here's 3 more links to microevolution proof

Lyion said: RUST! HELLO!?! M---A---C---R---O... MACRO evolution... MACRO, you idiot!

Rust pouts: Well if you're going to ignore the evidence of microevolution, I just won't link you any more examples.

Lyion said: ...

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level.

Synapsids to mammals is at the level of Class. So is reptile-to-bird.

Class is a higher phylogenetic level than species.

The transitional series from synapsid reptiles to mammals is obviously macroevolution.

Corollary: Ugzug is either unable to read properly or simply doesn't comprehend what he reads. He is however sufficiently flexible as to be able to fit a penis in his mouth while keeping his head firmly stuffed up his own ass. Bravo.

--R.

Testy, testy, Rust! No need to get upset about things! I promise I won't tell your friend(s) that you're a fool.

Now, show me where, in the fossil record, there is a half-amphibian creature? I know the fossils show an amphibian AND a mammal... that does NOT give evidence that the mammal came from the amphibian. I know that there are birds and there are reptiles... but first there was scales, and then suddenly there is feathers. There are no steps in between. The fossil record does NOT display macroevolutionary evidence. Little feathers to big feathers transitions? Sure. Scales to feathers transitionary steps? No.

How is it that you're unable to understand this VERY SIMPLE concept and the difference between what you're TRYING to say and what Lyion is saying, Rust? If you were at least half as smart as you like to think you are, you wouldn't be having this problem.

[Langston]

because Lyion's a closed book.

Avoid mirrors, Rust.

[mappatazee]

scales, feathers
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 071204.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornithosaurus
amphibians, reptiles
http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/ ... h/x598.htm

Edit: And many people forget the point that all current and past species ARE species in transition. Including you and me.

[Diabolik]

OK... so none of what you guys has said is "fact." It's all speculation, theories, etc.

All things considered, I'd have to say that evolution is the more likely scenario. It's not perfect, but more than likely the closest to what really happened, in my opinion.

[Rust]

Right. The only species that *aren't* evolving are extinct. And to a first approximation, all species are extinct anyway. =)

I do like Ugzug's 'half-amphibian' comment. It's one of those classic Creationist idiot questions. Then he somehow claims mammals arose from amphibians, which isn't what the fossil record shows anyhow (hint: reptiles in between). But it does show a profound ignorance of both paleontology and evolutionary theory to even pose the question the way he does.

And as to fact, obviously the suggested transitional series are inferences based on the fossils themselves, and the changes in them over time through the strata. Over time, new fossils will be found that may cause a rearrangement of some series. The fossil record is imperfect. But to seriously claim that 'there are no transitional fossils' is ludicrous. Just walk into your nearest university Paleontology department, and make that claim in a seminar Q&A session and get laughed out of the building.

All evolution is, is an attempt to explain the evidence. So far it's the best explanation science has come up with about the history and diversity of life on earth. Comparative anatomy, morphology, the fossil record, molecular biology and genetics. New evidence is found all the time, and it's incorporated in the model. Sometimes old ideas get disproven by new evidence. That's just part of science.

--R.

[Lyion]

Way to ignore my link above that showed Kathleen Turner and your sites 'FAQ' for what it is. A joke.

Typical.

[Tikker]

Creationist Hugh Ross, who believes that the universe and earth are on the order of billions of years old, states that the fossil record does exhibit some "transitional-looking forms". However, Ross notes that the rules of population genetics, biophysics, most importantly mutation rates would never allow for purely natural processes to evolve life as we know it1, 2. Thus, he claims that "God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones ... as part of God's plan to prepare Earth's environment for His ultimate creation on Earth--the human race.1" His rationale for this is not just that "'horizontal branches' ... are not support by fossil evidence" but also because "science [does not] offer any mechanism adequate to account for natural branching.2" Thus, fossils alone are not enough to make the evolutionary transition plausible, for an adequate biological mechanism to explain the transition also must be provided. Just because one claims to have a fossil of a "walking whale" or a "fish with legs" does not necessarily mean that the purely naturalistic evolutionary account is true or that we can't know that supernatural action and/or Intelligent Design weren't also involved in the process.

that whole thing made me giggle

You might as well stop any arguement where someone says "this is how science says xxx works"

and the reort is " no way, god made it this way"

[Tikker]

and by reort, i mean retort, wuwu

[Rust]

Way to ignore my link above that showed Kathleen Turner and your sites 'FAQ' for what it is. A joke.

Typical.

First of all, Kathleen TURNER (an actress) played Jessica Rabbit. Kathleen HUNT (who is a Research Scientist on the staff of the Dept. of Biology at the University of Washington) wrote the FAQ. It's only one FAQ on the site of many. Of course you wouldn't know that, since you refuse to actually go look at the site.

Second of all, your posted critical article is garbage - pseudo-scientific whining that doesn't actually deal with the evidence, but cries on and on about how they don't like the terms she used to describe the fossils. Readers are welcome to check out the actual document (warning: Lyion thinks the site is biased) and then check the actual references. I mean, don't take my word on it, and don't take Kathleen's (though her FAQ is probably the most widely cited document on the Net that deals with transitionals, I can't begin to guess how many links there are to it). Get a book on vertebrate paleontology or vertebrate evolution, and see why the fossils represent a clear, graded transition from synapsid reptiles to early mammals. Kathleen's work has survived the test of time and is still widely cited by actual researchers as a useful summary - because it's good science.

If you want a 'Christian' view on transitionals, the American Scientific Affiliation (' a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science') has an article by Glenn Morton (link) that discusses transtionals in the early Cambrian at the phylum level.

Again, if you don't like Kathleen's work, just go to the primary literature. If you don't agree with it, come up with a better explanation of the evidence. So far, nobody's managed that.

--R.

[Lyion]

Kathleen HUNTs article is a joke. Apparently she knows as much science as Kathleen Turner.

Anyone who reads that review can see it for the complete piece of garbage it is.

I'm not the one claiming something with no proof done with gaping holes is fact.

Ugz called you. Others have called you.

You lose. Here I'll repost so the 'gospel' you've been quoting for 100 threads can get yet again

http://www.alternativescience.com/talk. ... itions.htm

"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils"

A criticism frequently levelled against Darwinism is that there are no transitional fossils linking one species with another. Darwinists strongly reject this charge and the talk-origins "FAQ" by Kathleen Hunt entitled 'Transitional Vertebrate Fossils' is perhaps the most robust defence of this issue from a Darwinian point of view.

Hunt begins her "FAQ" by drawing a distinction between transitional fossils that show a 'general lineage' and those that demonstrate 'species-to-species transition'. The latter she defines as 'a very fine grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event.'

This is a courageously unambiguous definition and one that leads any rational person to expect that Hunt will then present evidence for such a 'fine grained sequence' that documents an 'actual speciation event'. Unfortunately, however, that is not what is presented in her "FAQ".

Take, for example, one of the most important and earliest transitions that Darwinists claim took place, that of primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates and rays. This is the evidence that Hunt actually offers us: (I have highlighted certain words in red)
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays

* Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
* Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.

GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.

* Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
* Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
* Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
* Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
* Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
* Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.


Notice that, where we are promised a 'fine-grained sequence documenting an actual speciation event,' what we are actually given is conjecture and suppositions like:-

'. . .clearly derived from

'. . probably not ancestral, but gives a remarkable picture . .'

' . . shark-like fins . .'

' . . Probably ancestral . .'

' . . more advanced features but retains primitive features . .'

' . . a very early . . . '

Notice that these and similar frequently-used phrases are not scientific terms, They are undefined Darwinist code words, used to suggest or imply that there is strong or direct scientific evidence of a relationship -- other similar phrases are found throughout the "FAQ", such as 'mammalian tendencies' ' and 'bear-like features' Other handy terms and phrases used to explain fossil features that don't fit the Darwinist theory include 'vestigial' and this truly magnificent one, 'Another early mustelid, but has some rather puzzling traits that may mean it is not a direct ancestor of later mustelids.' Puzzling, indeed.

In every case, these terms are used without any evidence to support them other than the trivial fact that there is some physical resemblance -- the argument from homology. But as pointed out elsewhere, if you relied on homology as a guide you would conclude that the human foot had evolved from the human hand, or vice versa -- something we know cannot be true.

Moreover, on top of all these weasel words, Hunt actually admits from the outset that there is a gap in the fossils and adds, without a trace of irony,

'So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.'

In which case, one is bound to ask, Then what the Dickens is this description doing in a "FAQ" purporting to give concrete, species-to-species examples of transitions between jawless fish and sharks?

What is true for jawless fish is true for every single species and every single 'transition' on Hunt's list. And the reason is the same in every case. It is because when a convinced Darwinist looks at the fossil evidence and talks of 'transitions' he or she means something quite different from what any ordinary, objective reasonable observer means. So what exactly does a Darwinist mean by the word 'transition' and what does an objective reasonable observer mean?

Darwinists believe that one species turns into another species through a process of genetic mutation combined with natural selection. This is necessarily a gradual process, one that happens over the generations. So that if you examine the offspring of any particular generation, it will not seem so very different from its parents. But if you examine the offspring distant by, say, one hundred generations, or one thousand generations, or ten thousand generations from the original species, then you will see a major difference.

But when it comes to evaluating fossils, looking for this difference, there is a difficulty that doesn’t exist with living species. You can tell whether living creatures are members of the same or different species by carrying out a laboratory test (such as artificial insemination) to see if they are physiologically capable of breeding. If they are so capable then they belong to the same species; if they are not, they belong to different species. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to apply the breeding test to animals known only from their fossils.

It is also possible to sequence the DNA of living or recently dead creatures and make a comparison of their DNA to see how closely related they are. But again, DNA testing (of the 'Jurassic Park' kind) is not available for fossil animals.

What this means is that there remains only one valid scientific test that would enable an objective observer to claim that one fossil is related by descent to an earlier fossil and that is an unbroken (or practically intact) chain of evidence linking the earlier and later fossils.

It is sometimes said that this demand is for an impossibly high standard of evidence -- like expecting an archaeologist to find an intact tomb of Caesar or Cleopatra with their personal diary beside the body. The reality is somewhat different.

Three-quarters of the Earth's land surface is covered with sedimentary rocks. A great proportion of these rocks are continuously stratified where they outcrop and the strata contain distinctive fossils such as sea urchins in the chalk and ammonites in many Mesozoic rocks. The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing indisputable signs of gradual progressive change on the same basic stock, but above the species level (as distinct from subspecific variation).

Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic evolution - but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion with a straightforward fossil sequence from successive strata. Yet there are so many billions of fossils available from so many thousands of strata, that the failure to meet this modest demand is inexplicable if transitions have taken place in the way Hunt describes.

It ought to be relatively easy to assemble not merely a handful but hundreds of species arranged in lineal descent. Schoolchildren should be able to do this on an afternoon's nature study trip to the local quarry: but even the world's foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world's greatest universities at their disposal.

This is the reason that a genuinely objective observer says there is not a single transition known. And when Darwinists assert that there are many such transitional fossils what they really mean is that they have found isolated fossils that look as if they are intermediate between one species or another ( 'probably', 'shark-like' 'tendencies', 'mammal-like') -- therefore, they must be evidence of transitional species, because Darwinism predicts such fossils.

Or they mean that they can find limited physical variation occurring in a true fossil line of descent (shells getting a little longer or a little shorter) and try to claim that this amounts to 'speciation' -- just as they do with living varieties such as the peppered moth or Darwin's finches.

This is a kind of circular evidence -- evidence by argument -- that would not be permitted in any other university department or in any other branch of science. Yet it is not only tolerated in Palaeontology, it is actively taught and encouraged.

What then is the scientific status of the detailed schemes of descent that Hunt and other Darwinists have drawn up over the past century?

When you have before you a massive amount of data, especially data that is generically similar, it is very easy to perceive patterns in that data that look like 'sequences'. All that is necessary is to take the data that does not fit your 'sequence' and file it away in a drawer labelled 'Not yet decided', 'status unknown' or simply 'unsolved problems'. In reality, if the data in the file drawer were added to the so-called sequence data, any objective observer would quickly see that there isn’t a developing series but a mass of contradictory details.

This pitfall entraps scientists constantly. In the recent past some Israeli professors of mathematics have published a book asserting that the names of twentieth century people can be found encoded in the Bible -- and so they can, if you select the data to fit your theory.

Of course, this is not to deny the sincerity or integrity of the scientists who sincerely believe they have found such evolutionary sequences -- just as the Israeli professors sincerely believe they have found Adolph Hitler in the Bible.



Conclusion

My recommendation to those responsible for maintaining the talk-origins "FAQ":-

This "FAQ" should be returned to Kathleen Hunt and she should be asked to remove from it all conjecture, baseless assertions and guesswork based on trivial superficial similarities.

Wherever she wishes to assert a relationship between two species, she should be asked to produce direct evidence (as distinct from conjecture) first that they really are two species, not merely varieties, and that there is an unbroken chain of intermediate variation of the type predicted by Darwinism in the intermediate strata between them.

She should be asked to remove undefined cod-scientific words (such as 'mammalian tendencies' and 'shark-like' ) and replace them instead with terms defined according to established scientific principles.

Whatever is left after this process is the sum total of human knowledge on transitional fossills.

[Tikker]

The part that I don't understand, is how you jump to the conclusion that if Darwin is less than 100% correct, God must be responsible

[Harrison]

The only species that *aren't* evolving are extinct. And to a first approximation, all species are extinct anyway. =)

Wrong, 100% wrong.

That was so retarded I'm not even going to explain how much so.

[Harrison]

The problem nowadays is people are so arrogant as to believe they KNOW there is or was no God of any sort.

For some unknown reason (seems to be in younger, cocky "pseudo-intellectuals") that belief in a God is synonymous with ignorance or stupidity.

It's simply not the case. Personally I don't give a shit what you believe or don't believe. You don't know shit when it comes down to it. We are fucking microscopic in the grand scheme of things and to think you know how everything works is laughable at best.

[shiraz]

In a way, this thread reminds me of when I used to be a intro biology TA. Every semester at least one student would come to me and tell me that they couldn't write an essay on evolution because they were a creationist. I asked them if they knew of any atheists who studied divinity, christians who studied other religions, etc. They always said, "sure." My reply was that they should treat the essay like an atheist writing an essay on Genesis. Learn it, understand it, analyze it...believe it or don't, just do the assignment.

I never had any problems after that. Some of my colleagues would try to convince these students that their opinions were based on ignorance, that evolution was fact, and so forth. It always caused a world of pain for them, meetings with deans...whatever. And noone ever changed their mind....

What's my point? I don't know....I guess what I am saying is if you don't mind letting people teach and learn evolution as an idea, I don't care if you don't believe in it. That opinion made my life 1000 times easier when I was a bio grad student.

[Diekan]

Evolution, by definition, is the acquisition of advantageous phenotypic characteristics brought on through genomic mutations. In other words, when an organism displays a new advantageous physical characteristic that is brought about through a mutation of a particular gene, operon, whatever, and is successufly passed down from generation to generation... it may be construed as having evolved.

Let me give a very light example of the theory of evolution: Many of you are well aware of the growing concern of several antibiotic resistant bacteria strains. This may be considered a form of evolution, on a rather elementary level. Let's say we have bacteria X, which has been implicated in causing disease in humans. So, after a little research we find that bacteria X is susceptible to penicillin and as such our doctors start prescribing the antibiotic to patients who test positive for the presence the bug. For a while it proves effective and will keep the population of whatever bacteria (not just bug X) might be susceptible to its potency, however, SOME of the bacteria will always survive. Eventually, a mutation will occur within the bacteria's genome that will alter its physical characteristics in such a way that the antibiotic will have no effect.

Now, even though most people would consider it the “same” bacteria, in actuality it is not. It HAS changed. It is no longer the same strain... in short it has “evolved” to now be resistant. This is an example of an advantageous phenotypic characteristic brought on through genomic mutation. A mutation that is successfully passed down from generation to generation.

Evolution IS a theory, but it's a theory supported by a great deal of solid observations. More so than Creationism that is grounded solely in faith – with no empirical data to support it, what-so-ever.

I just don't understand why we can't have both. Whether or not we are being watched by a creator is a matter of faith based opinion. If we cannot prove it, then why is it so hard to accept that perhaps such a creator designed the inhabitants of this world to evolve? Because the bible didn't say so? I don't need to point out that the bible has been written and rewritten again and again by the very fallible hand of man. Who really knows what the original words of the bible were?

Anyway, with out digressing further – you cannot look at the data combined with its definition and say that the theory of evolution is lacking of any real credibility.

I can write a novel on this subject, but right now it's 12:30 in the morning – and I have porn to look at.

[Rust]

The only species that *aren't* evolving are extinct. And to a first approximation, all species are extinct anyway. =)

Wrong, 100% wrong.

That was so retarded I'm not even going to explain how much so.

Well, O Lumpy Muse of Science, my statement above is two claims.

1) All non-extinct species are evolving.

Looking at a typical modern biology textbook definition of evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"[1], you show me a species that *isn't* evolving - where no changes in gene frequencies occur between generations. Then write it up and send it to Nature or Science because it'll get published. Even clonal organisms have errors in DNA replication, for goodness sake.

2) "To a first approximation, all species are extinct"

The second comment (really a joke) is based on something Dr. David Raup (curator at the Field Museum of Natural History) used to say, that since 99.9% of all species that have existed on the Earth are extinct, then to a first approximation, all species are extinct. Raup was well known for his work with Jack Sepkoski on mass extinctions in the fossil record. He knew a hell of a lot more about it than you do, so forgive me if I don't leap to your position on the matter. For various quotes and cites, Google on 'raup all species are extinct'. I think I have his book 'Extinction' on the shelf in the other room. (afk) Yup! [2] On page 3 he points out there are"possibly as many as 40 million" species alive today, versus 5 to 50 billion species over the history of the earth. So between 99 in 100 and 999 in 1000 species that ever existed on Earth are extinct - "a truly lousy survival record" in his words.

So... your comment about how 'retarded' I am should be easy to back up; all you have to do is find a species that doesn't evolve, and show that Dave Raup didn't know what he was talking about in terms of species extinctions. I'm sure they're both well within the capacity of such an amazing autodidact high-school dropout as yourself.

Go for it, Dr. Lumpy!

--R.

[1] Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974.

[2] Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck, David M. Raup, Norton, 1991. ISBN 0-393030927-4

[Rust]

I can write a novel on this subject, but right now it's 12:30 in the morning – and I have porn to look at.

Let me say it's damned pleasant not to always be in disagreement with someone.

I'll also again repeat that I have no problem with people who believe God created life. I mean, there's no evidence either way pointing at God or abiogenesis. I don't lose sleep over either possibility. I know any number of evolutionists who are also sincere in their religious beliefs. Stan Friesen or Michael Siemon on talk.origins are both quite happy with their faith in God and their support for evolution as His mechanism. My personal view is that it's impossible to know how life arose; I simply don't know. If 'God did it', there won't really BE any physical evidence, while if it was abiogenesis, the first life forms (or 'primitive replicators') simply won't have left any traces in the fossil record.

What I *do* object to is people lying and distorting facts and evidence, and trying to shove their religious prejudices into science classrooms. Or people who claim there are 'no transitional fossils' or that 'radiometric dating is false'. They're simply fools or lying.

--R.