Lonestar_logic
Republic of Texas
- May 13, 2009
- 24,539
- 2,233
- 205
LOL. Okay dumbfuck. That's just one of the many we have. I thought it was the most interesting, since if I recall correctly that's one of the first ones that went on land. Since I posted one, that must be the only one I have right?
Wikipedia has a list. You could find more I'm sure at your local library if you bothered to pick up a science book that didn't have the Bible labeled on the front.
By the way, no response to the rest of my post? What a surprise, you don't understand the thing you're criticizing. Move along please, people who actually understand science are talking.
It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.
I could be wrong, but it remains an example of a transitional fossil. Which was the original point of that example.
Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.
Except entirely disprove your claim that we have in fact found transitional fossils.
Continue to deny reality all you want, it won't go away no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it too.
The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.
Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.
To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.
So you don't have actually a rebuttal when faced with someone who actually is scientifically literate with the thing you're talking about. What a surprise. I suggest again you go to your local library and pick up a book on biology. I think everyone already knows you failed high school biology.
Just because you and a few scientist claim it's a transitional fossil does not make it so. I have shown scientist that denied it being a transitional fossil. Therefore no positive conclusion can be drawn. Furthermore pictures and claims made in wikipedia are as credible as anything Obama says.
Objective paleontologists concede that ones interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by ones presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil recordwhere it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.
If that werent enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes 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. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]