Creationists

[Koios]

What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...

So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.

Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".

You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

More here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

CC200: Transitional fossils

Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils

Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7

So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.

Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43


There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.


The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

Darwinism Refuted.com

Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.

This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.

Living-Fossils.com

How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.

You need help !

 

[Hollie]

Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".

You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

More here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



CC200: Transitional fossils

Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils

Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.

Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap

So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.

Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43


There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.


The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

Darwinism Refuted.com

Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.

This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.

Living-Fossils.com

How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?

How does the fundie do it? The above is the same link to Harun Yahya posted multiple times. The fundie has also pasted the same falsified "quotes" which have been shown to be frauds, twice previously.

Why do fundies believe that posting lies over and over again will somehow lessen the lie?

It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.

 

[Koios]

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.

You need help !

Nah; hear me out: sure; we're killing God's little miracles, but they're only children. Whiny, expense, non-productive (PAY NO TAX!) babies.

Put 'em in the blender!!!

 

[CrackedSkull]

You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

More here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



CC200: Transitional fossils

Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils



Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap

So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.

Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43


There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.


The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

Darwinism Refuted.com

Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.

This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.

Living-Fossils.com

How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?

How does the fundie do it? The above is the same link to Harun Yahya posted multiple times. The fundie has also pasted the same falsified "quotes" which have been shown to be frauds, twice previously.

Why do fundies believe that posting lies over and over again will somehow lessen the lie?

It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.

It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.

Its been a LIE for 2000 years no need for them to change tactics now.

 

[ima]

So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

Wtf does that have to do with evolution?

Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.

 

[Koios]

So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

Wtf does that have to do with evolution?

Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.

There's a tie-in. When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly. Some of us are thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs. It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.

So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.

 

[ima]

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

Wtf does that have to do with evolution?

Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.

There's a tie-in. When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly. Some of us are thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs. It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.

So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.

So how do you know that gays aren't part of the plan? Who said so?

 

[Koios]

Wtf does that have to do with evolution?

Anyways, if Jesus actually existed, a lot of people think that he might have been gay himself. All the paintings of him portray him as very effeminate, he only hung around with guys, only had sex once with a woman to see if he'd like it (he obviously didn't or he would have done it again and again...), he always wore a dress-like garment, and he rode that gay pride symbol of ancient times, the donkey.

There's a tie-in. When species evolve, they wind up with pretty complex reproductive systems, as indeed humans do, since sex is pretty damn ambiguous until certain events in the womb assign gender, albeit, not always exactly. Some of us are thus born straight or gay or bi, or are women with male genetalia, or males with female parts, or maybe both sex organs. It's all over the map, since nature neither moralizes, nor gets everything right everytime.

So evolution leads to gay humans, many of whom will marry.

1. So how do you know that gays aren't part of the plan? 2. Who said so?

1. Because there is no plan; it's random. 2. Lots of folks, with emphasis on our most intelligent / well-schooled, beginning with Chuck Darwin.

 

[Bill Angel]

"The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:"

How does the migration of animals and man figure into this? If sometime in the far distant future paleontologists unearth the fossil record of human beings in North America they will find no fossil record of man's presence earlier than 50,000 years ago, when fossils of man suddenly appear. The reason of course is because of man's migration into North America, and not because man suddenly evolved from older species present in the fossil record of North America, or was suddenly created by God in North America, which should be taken as the location of the Garden of Eden.

 

[UltimateReality]

I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.

Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".

You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

More here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

CC200: Transitional fossils

Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils

Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4532.full?sid=bf5700fe-031f-4289-baa4-b8f3de8982d7

So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.

Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.

 

[jack113]

What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...

To bad you don't have something more constructive to do with your life than waste it like this.

 

[UltimateReality]

So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.

Like I said, Atheism is the most dangerous worldview.

 

[UltimateReality]

Common mistake made by idelogical websites suggesting that the fossil record shows gradualism. The fossil record shows darwin was wrong that layers of strata would show gradualism and produce millions of transitional fossils. The theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed because stasis was found in the fossil record not gradual evolution over eons of time. The evolutionists quickly moved to discredit the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the words of paleontologists that spoke of stasis in the fossil recoed because it blows of the theory of evolution over billions of years.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43


There is no gradual development in the fossil record such as Darwin had predicted. Different species emerged all at once, with their own peculiar bodily structures.


The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.44

Further research only strengthened the facts of stasis and sudden appearance. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge write in 1993 that "most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction."45 Robert Carroll is forced to agree in 1997 that "Most major groups appear to originate and diversify over geologically very short durations, and to persist for much longer periods without major morphological or trophic change."46

At this point, it is necessary to clarify just what the concept of "transitional form" means. The intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species, but which possess deficient or semi-developed organs. But sometimes the concept of intermediate form is misunderstood, and living structures which do not possess the features of transitional forms are seen as actually doing so. For instance, if one group of living things possesses features which belong to another, this is not an intermediate form feature. The platypus, a mammal living in Australia, reproduces by laying eggs just like reptiles. In addition, it has a bill similar to that of a duck. Scientists describe such creatures as the platypus as "mosaic creatures." That mosaic creatures do not count as intermediate forms is also accepted by such foremost paleontologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.47

Darwinism Refuted.com

Now let's take a look at stasis in the fossil record with living fossils.

This site provides many organisms that show stasis in the fossil record.Search through this site there is plenty of evidence blowing up gradualism.

Living-Fossils.com

How do you explain stasis in the fossil record ? then try and show extinct organisms fully formed and no gradualism in your examples of tranitional fossils ?

How does the fundie do it? The above is the same link to Harun Yahya posted multiple times. The fundie has also pasted the same falsified "quotes" which have been shown to be frauds, twice previously.

Why do fundies believe that posting lies over and over again will somehow lessen the lie?

It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.

It seems that lies and deceit are an integral part of the fundie agenda.

Its been a LIE for 2000 years no need for them to change tactics now.

Dur, which way did he go George. The Judeo-Christian tradition is much older than 2000 years Einstein. If your going to resort to attacks, at least be accurate.

 

[UltimateReality]

What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...

To bad you don't have something more constructive to do with your life than waste it like this.

If you are attempting a rebuttal to gain some scientific credibility, you might want to start with your grammar.

 

[Koios]

Because it leads to abortion and "gay marriage." In other words, making God in our image instead of the other way around.

But abortion is a wonderful thing, what with them little miracles being dumped into bio hazard waste bins, praise babyjesus.

Like I said, Atheism is the most dangerous worldview.

Not shit! Them atheists going at it in the middle east not to mention flying planes into buildings and shit, are a real menace we need to protect our homeland security with a big guvmint agency.

Amen

 

[Hollie]

Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".

You will find them you just have to go beyond the myths in the Bible:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

More here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



CC200: Transitional fossils

Creation Science Rebuttal, Transitional Fossils

Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.

Earliest Carboniferous tetrapod and arthropod faunas from Scotland populate Romer's Gap

So what was that about no transitional fossils? You are wrongly assuming that because there are gaps in the fossil record that there were no transitional fossils which is an illogical conclusion.

Like I said, "might haves" and "could haves" with NO REAL EVIDENCE.

Fundie zealots being science illiterate makes them poor candidates to critique established scientific principles.

 

[daws101]

This is a prime example of your limited understanding. I will infer from you Captain Obvious attempt to splain to me what accord means that the joke went right over your cantankerous crotchety head.

as always attempting and failing to be funny.

Yes you are.

yes I 'am all the things you epically fail at!

 

[daws101]

Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.

I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.

Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".

more creationist diarrhea!


fact:Transitional fossil


A transitional fossil is a fossil of an organism that has traits from multiple evolutionary stages. Proponents of creationism claim that "evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found", despite the discovery of Archaeopteryx (a transitional form between maniraptoran dinosaurs and basal (primitive) birds, and among the best examples of evolution) only two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Creationists say that we never saw evolution happen, but transitional fossils are the next best thing.

Since then, many other transitional forms, such as Ambulocetus and Pakicetus[1][2] (land mammals to marine cetaceans), and Tiktaalik[3] and Acanthostega[4] (fish to tetrapods) have been found.

The National Academy of Sciences has commented on the abundance of transitional forms: "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species."[5]

Creationist denial

What was that about half a wing not being useful?
Finding transitional forms never impresses creationists. If a transitional form B, between known species A and C is found, they demand "transitional forms" between A & B and B & C, a demand that is essentially unfulfillable at the individual level, such as at a parent-child case where no "transitional form" occurs. Apparently, the only thing that would satisfy them is a complete set of generation-by-generation fossils of every life-form in a direct line of descent from the first bacteria to Charles Darwin's grand-father[6] However, due to the rarity of the fossilisation process, this is unlikely to occur, although new finds are being made which add to the information provided by the fossil record.



By Rima Chaddha
Posted 11.01.07
NOVA

In 2004, scientists digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed fossils of a half-fish, half-amphibian that all but confirmed paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods–four-limbed animals, including us–evolved from fish. It is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges a so-called evolutionary gap between different types of animal. In this slide show, examine five important cases.
NOVA | Fossil Evidence