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.
2007-05-12
14:28:47
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
I have to totally disagree with you. There has never been found a "missing link" from species to species. If you study both sides of the issue it comes down to the fact that Evolutionists and Creationists interpret the evidence differently. For example the forlimb of man can be compared bone for bone to the wing of a bird or the flipper of a whale. The evolutionist interprets this evidence by saying "common ancestor" while the creationist says, "common design". There is no assumption by saying "common design" but there is a huge assumption saying "common ancestor".
The most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.
Logic deals with the validity in thought and demonstration. Aquinas explains that a demonstration can be shown in one of two ways; either through cause or an effect. He states, "When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause." (Great 19:12) This is simply an investigative process. In an explosion we search for what the cause of it was. It is a known fact that "...if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist." (19:12) So far, logic shows that the Creation Model can be demonstrated while the Evolution Model can not.
Even though Aquinas also shows that the existence of God is self-evident Locke summed it up best by saying, "from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our constitution, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth -- That there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being." (2:552)
Since circumstantial evidence can not be used to settle controversies of this nature it is essential to use evidence that is conclusive. This type of evidence would be a law or principle of established known facts that has no known exceptions to the rule. There are at least three laws of physics and several principles that can be applied to the issue of how everything began. It would be irrational to believe in evidence that is questionable over evidence that has been established as a fact of nature.
Of the four basic sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, and geology) physics dominates them all. This is why they are known as the physical sciences. So, it is reasonable to believe in the origin "model" that conforms to the laws of physics rather than a theory in biology.
2007-05-12 14:45:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by cascioben 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
I got news for you, it's not only Christians per se who question the theory of evolution. Many scientists and people in the know have thrown the Theory of Evolution out of their minds and have come to grips with the real evidence that there just might be a "higher intelligence" ruling the natural world. I know that is difficult for some to wrap their minds around, but you must realize that the word "theory" means speculation; hypothesis; doctrine. This word can also be applied to the spiritual realm as well. If you would refer to the book of Genesis you will learn that it is written there that God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was dark and shapeless and then there was water. He let the light shine and kept it apart from the night and so the first day was born. He divided the water with land and put upon it plants and seeds. Then came the seasons which denoted the passage of time. He made the stars. From the waters came life that swam, and there was life that crawled and flew. From the earth came living creatures as well. And last, God created man and blessed all that he had done and said to all his things to be fruitful and multiply. In other words, what I'm telling you is that there was an order to the way things were done. And my final word is this; everything and anything is open to speculation. You don't have to be a Christian to question any theory.
2007-05-12 15:03:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Call Me Babs 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yawn. And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
1. Being a Christian is not synonymous with denying evolution, although some Christians do. So do some Jews, So do some Muslims, so do some non believers. Those that deny evolution will not be persuaded by your argument.
2. Acceptance of evolution and belief in the theory as we know it does not rule out creation. The idea that the limited understanding we have of these mechanisms is complete enough to categorically rule out the divine is, well, sophomoric. But in science, we never rely on the divine as an explanation because to do so would have us choose a dogma and then learn no more. However, the discipline of not relying on the divine to explain things scientifically is not in itself proof that there is no God. It is simply the discipline we must use in order to unlock the mysteries before us.
So, all the scientific facts, precision, and truths that we have in no way invalidates a belief in God. The most you can say is that it invalidates some people's interpretation of some scriptures. Big deal.
2007-05-12 15:06:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by jehen 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Features? Features? Since when do features in fossils constitute evolution? That is an extremely long stretch made by those who get excited. There is not one shred of "evidence" that is not influenced by one particular evolutionary group of scientist excitement over the next big find. Why do they think it is a transition in the first place? Because that is what they are looking for. The fact is that those facts you refer to are tainted by predisposition. It's preposterous I tell you.
2007-05-12 14:42:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Daniel P 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
And the making of fossils is not easy. It's not every creature that dies is going to leave fossilized remains. It takes a unique set of circumstances for fossils to be preserved. There are far more creatures that live and die and leave no remains than there are that do. So there could have been millions of species of creatures for which there is absolutely no evidence.
2007-05-12 14:37:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Desiree 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm a catholic and i COMPLETELY believe in evolution. You see...the problem is that too many people misinterpret the story of genesis in the bible. Genesis, in it's pure and natural state, is NOT meant to be interpreted literally. The whole point of genesis was to basically show that God and man once shared a very strong and distinct relationship, and this relationship was broken....and so was the kinship among men. "The Fall" is symbolic of man's deviation from his initial relationship with God, which could have occurred over several thousands of years. So i fully accept all the claims and evidence of evolution.....because i understand that many aspects of Genesis are not to be taken literally.
2007-05-12 14:41:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Spurious 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Don't generalize. Many Christians accept the reality of evolution.
-Not a Christian, but not intolerant of them either. Usually.
2007-05-12 14:31:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Huddy 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm still waiting for you to disprove intelligent design.
2007-05-12 14:33:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Angie 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
Okay, so what is your point?
2007-05-12 14:31:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by nowyouknow 7
·
2⤊
1⤋