Is it time to re educate creationists on "transitional fossils" again..?

Question

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

So, no more "there are no transitional fossils" comments please..

Answer 1

Creationism both its definition and its application has gotten way out of hand lately. In the beginning, about 100 years ago, Evolution and Creationism shared about 90 percent of their discoveries, and they only disagreed about the conclusions of those factual discoveries. (The pure scientists stick with discoveries and do not make conclusions; but oh the vested interests they are the ones who are really causing all the misunderstandings)

In short, we should re-educate ourselves on the basics and then we can more easily not be persuaded by these "labels".

Answer 2

"Thus far, the only obvious dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was 'found' is Archaeoraptor liaoningenis. This so-called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud. (pg 302) What's needed to support evolution is not an unusual mosaic of complete traits, but a trait in transition, such as a "scale-feather", what creationist biologists would call a "sceather". (pg 303) One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent that Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is generally recognized to be a true bird. (13) Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds when birds already exist doesn't help the case for evolution (pg 304)."

ps- the Australopithecus afarensis is nothing more than an extinct ape

Answer 3

First of all, bird evolution is one of the most controversial areas in evolutionary paleontology and evolutionists often disagree and criticize each other.

We hear a lot of reports of feathered dinosaurs being found, but what you rarely hear, is that the main candidates are believed by many experts to simply be frayed collagen fibers, or hair like structures that could have supported a frill or crest like those on iguanas, or are on animals that are not dinosaurs, but flightless birds. The drawings are certainly not what we find; they are just the artists’ imagination. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist, along with his coworkers have presented a substantial body of evidence to support their view that there are, in fact, no known dinosaurs with feathers (they believe birds evolved from different reptiles, but not dinosaurs).

And then you have ones like Archaeoraptor that was proven to be a hoax. Who knows how many times that will happen.

All these announcements of feathered dinosaurs cause a lot of media fanfare, but when they are refuted, there is scarcely a whimper in the media. There is usually a deafening silence when the latest “evidence” for evolution joins the long list of items which are no longer believed by evolutionists themselves.

But what about Archaeopteryx? Archaeopteryx was a true perching bird with fully formed wings and flight feathers, as well as a large wishbone for the attachment of muscles used for the downstroke of the wings. So what is all the fuss about; why is Archaeopteryx such an icon of evolution? Well, it had teeth in the bill, claws on the wings, no keel on the breast bone, an unfused backbone, and a long, bony tail, which are all characteristics most people associate with reptiles.

But as Dr. Gary Parker said, “...the reptile-like features are not really as reptile-like as you might suppose. The familiar ostrich, for example, has claws on its wings that are even more ‘reptile-like’ than those of Archaeopteryx. Several birds, such as the hoatzin, don’t have much of a keel. The penguin has unfused backbones and a bony tail. No living birds have socketed teeth, but some fossil birds do. Besides, some reptiles have teeth and some don’t, so the presence or absence of teeth is not particularly important in distinguishing the two groups.”

Dr. Alan Feduccia (like I said, an evolutionist, and by the way, one who doesn’t like creationists quoting him) said, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

On top of that, scientists have found fossils of what they would call “true birds” in layers of rock that they date as being older than Archaeopteryx. That presents a problem for them.

I believe Archaeopteryx was something of a mosaic like a bat or platypus. Similar structures can just as easily point to a common designer. God knew what designs would work well in multiple animals.

What they need to find, is a fossil showing scales turning into feathers, or a leg turning into a wing, or the reptile lung turning into the avian lung. How you can take a “two-way” reptile lung and evolve it into a fully functional “one-way” bird lung without causing extinction of the species is quite a conundrum.

And there are other problems. Feduccia and his team studied bird embryos under a microscope and published their study in the journal Science. They reported, “New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is ‘almost impossible’ for the species to be closely related.”

And then there is the new T-rex and chicken link based on that T-rex soft tissue they found. But as usual, we don’t ever get to hear the whole story. Dr. David DeWitt commented on this and said, “Of all the organisms in the sequence database, the one that matched T. rex the closest was the chicken. Now, before assuming that this would be strong evidence that birds are related to dinosaurs, it must be put into perspective. The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58%, while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows. Moreover, while some of the peptide fragments showed sequence matches to chickens, others matched frog, or newt, or even fish and mice. The authors did point out that not all organisms are in the database. Although the chicken was the closest match from the database, it is possible that animals not included could be a closer match. Regardless, such similarity does not prove that the organisms shared an evolutionary ancestor.”

There is no credible evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. As the Lingham-Soliar team said, “What is missing are the links between Archaeopteryx and other species that would show how it evolved. But [the] fossil record is frustratingly small and incomplete and this is why debate has been so fierce.” I think the fossil record is just fine; it teaches us that dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.

Answer 4

I think that what we really need is some Jon Stewart type to come up with a hilarious lampoon of the creationists' version of evolution. Illustrate all of the ridiculous things that creationists tell each other evolution is about, and make sure that the kiddies watching it know that this is what creationist propaganda is trying to pass off as evolution, like the Ken Ham nonsense someone quoted below, rather than what evolution is really about.

It could have those weird half-dog, half-cat creatures, and monkeys that suddenly wake up as human beings while still running around the zoo enclosure, younger (hence later) people always being "better" than older people, etc.

Answer 5

Educating creationists is folly. If they were interested in education, they wouldn't be creationists. All one can hope is that you let them show their true, ignorant colors (as several have done here) and let the evidence speak for itself to anyone that is actually interested in the truth. I've come to understand though, that there is a portion of mankind on the planet today, that will go their deathbeds in blissful, albeit confused, ignorance. We can only hope to educate their children and grandchildren. And a couple generations from now, those people will look back on this time, and hopefully get a little chuckle at how absurd it really was. (That is if we have a future, and the zealots don't wipe us all out in the final battle between faith and reason. You know many of them would prefer to die than lose their faith...)

Answer 6

Have you seen the Dikika Baby find? A complete australopithecus afarensis fossil, bones fused at death..showing knee caps (transiting to the human form)
Very interesting find.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature6/index.html

Answer 7

When you fill the gap with one transitional fossil, to the creationist, it just dissects that gap into two... and they say "hey, now there are two gaps!"