2007-05-10 18:36:26 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How about you and Shirley McClain giving birth to an 8 foot chicken?
Oh wait, sorry, that was the T-REX that became the chicken, right? My bad!
2007-05-10 18:43:05 · answer #1 · answered by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There can be none.
Denying the existence of transitional fossils is a safe refuge. By equating definition of transitional fossil with their preferred term of "missing link", a transitional fossil is by defintion an unknown transition between two known species. If a fossil is discovered that is that unknown transitional species, as soon as it is given a name, it is no longer "unknown"! So the creationist now denies that it is a "transitional fossil" (because now it is a "known" species).
Or to put it in Kirk Cameron's language ... even if we discovered a croco-duck, do you think for a second they would say "OK, that convinces me"? Yeah, right! They would say, "Well now that we know about croco-ducks, we can no longer call it a transitional fossil. So there is still not a single example of a 'transitional fossil' ... and you evolutionists still haven't found the transition between the crocodile and the crocoduck, or between the crododuck and the duck. ... So now you evolutionists have *two* missing transitional forms!"
It's a perfect game ... the target moves, by definition, every time you find it.
You know somebody is playing this word game when they make the claim that there are "no transitional fossils" AT ALL. That means that every fossil ever discovered is not "transitional" by their definition. So by their definition, A. afarensis is not a transitional fossil between A. ramidus and A. africanus (either that, or they've never heard of any of these, which is far more likely). But if it is not a transitional fossil between those other two species ... and if none of them are transitional fossils between Ardipithecus and Paranthropus ... then what the heck are these fossils? And what does 'transitional fossil' mean at all to them?
2007-05-11 02:35:07 · answer #2 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who knows? But the concept is fundamentally flawed. It is necessary to remember that genetic information is stored in digital, not analog, form. A one-bit change in the genetic code will have some minimum effect on the progeny, but there is no maximum: a one-bit change can activate all or part of an intron, or de-activate all or part of an exon, causing a change that is arbitrarily large. Hence, a proposed missing link may simply never have existed.
The real problem with creationism as a theory is that it is provably useless: it can predict nothing. To deal with it is therefore a complete waste of time.
2007-05-11 01:49:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about a TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Creationists need only go to museums, open their eyes and look at fossils of these birds with teeth and lizard-like skeletons to see proof of evolution. Problem is, they're too busy basking on the banks of denial. It's a very popular river.
2007-05-11 02:19:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, we've found thousands of transitional fossils, and not one of them has been good enough for the creationist. We've proven the age of the planet, the origins of the Grand Canyon, the existence of dinosaurs...regardless of the evidence, their mythology and propaganda will always blind them to the facts.
2007-05-11 01:50:05 · answer #5 · answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nothing. The proof already exists and every educated person is aware of it. Creationists refuse to face reality and examine the matter objectively – however, they have made some headway among the scientifically illiterate and pathologically faithful by lying…and lying… and lying … and…
2007-05-11 01:51:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Latest bulletin from the Creationist nuts:Satan 'planted' fossils to cause confusion,& to give credence to Atheism.You have to admire Satan,he's a very clever fella,ain't he?
2007-05-11 01:57:14 · answer #7 · answered by michael k 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Uh...how about the transitional fossils themselves?
They're quite abundant--we've got thousands of them. Unlike their 'side's' "you don't see the evidence because you don't have enough faith," creationists can be told "the evidence is RIGHT THERE. No faith required--just open your eyes (and your mind for that matter) and take a look, sheesh."
2007-05-11 01:43:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They keep talking about 'missing links'. The only way there wouldn't be any is if any animal that ever passed its genes onward was nice enough to get itself fossilized afterwards.
2007-05-11 01:41:01 · answer #9 · answered by eldad9 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
good question. shouldn't the mere fact that other species have existed in the past be proof of at least some evolution? The funniest thing is when they say science has done nothing but disprove "darwinism". uh huh.
Religion poisons everything. It doesn't have to, but it does.
2007-05-11 01:43:53 · answer #10 · answered by ajj085 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋