Creationists claim transitional fossils are nonexistent. Is tiktaalik not a perfect example of a transitional fossil.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
2007-05-18 07:32:08 · 8 answers · asked by Dog 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Mikld writes- "Nope! Supports adaption, not evolution"
-Evolution is the vehicle for genetic adaptation. You're statement contradicts itself.
2007-05-18 11:13:41 · update #1
Joe m- The theory of evolution doesn't state that humans evolved from modern day apes. The theory of evolution strongly supports modern man and modern apes as having a common ancestor. Big difference.
2007-05-18 11:18:15 · update #2
They constantly want more transitional fossils. They would then want one between this one and an actual fish. If you found that, they would want one between that one and a fish. In other words, they deny and deny and plug their ears so they never have to accept science.
2007-05-18 08:09:38 · answer #1 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tiktaalik heavily isn't a transitional fossil. Subin became looking contained in the incorrect strata depending on the conception that the transition must have befell between 385 mya and 360 mya because, again, the oldest tetrapod is round 360 mya. yet tiktaalik is a failed prediction because tetrapod predate tiktaalik. This in simple terms signifies that the meant transition must have already occured. Tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil.
2016-11-04 08:56:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the claims about the apes and why they are still here--ignoring the obvious that humaniods branched off from the tree that does include the great apes. Evolutionists also ignore the fact that our heathen ancestors, as well as our heathen religious zealots of today constantly try to kill or killed anyone that was different--hence why there is only one major human species, other species like the Neanderthals obviously lived at the same time as homo sapiens and they also had cave drawings and some other types of civilization markers, but they died off about 30,000 years ago. Bet our forefathers whacked them all because they were different, much like the radical islamists are trying to do to others that are different than them.
2007-05-18 07:42:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are holes in the evolutionary theory.
For example:
'If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?'
It's the best theory we have going right now - and I support learning as much as we can about the origins of man (rather than just accepting that some magical man in the sky created everything the way it is).
2007-05-18 07:36:11 · answer #4 · answered by Joe M 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Nope! Supports adaption, not evolution.
2007-05-18 07:35:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
yea it does. i watched a film soph year in highschool that said amphibians and some land animals come from fish.
2007-05-18 07:35:42 · answer #6 · answered by babeecakes510 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that fish can support whatever he wants to support as long as he doesn't support Bush...
2007-05-18 07:36:55 · answer #7 · answered by Annie 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Rosie O'Donnell....
Does a lesbian whale with an over-zealous mouth support stupidity?
Creation is the truth....evolution is a lie...
End of story
2007-05-18 07:35:22 · answer #8 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋