Evolutionists, can you explain these things?

Question

Evolutionists point to a few transitional animal forms that they believe show the evolutionary transition in the fossil record. However, such intermediates are often speculative and much disputed, even among evolutionists themselves. For example, one commonly used transitional form is the Amubulocetus natans (walking whale that swims) discovered recently. It is believed that whales evolved from some form of land mammal, and the the A. natans is transitional between the two, with halfway stuctures between land mammal and the whale. But when fossil drawings of A. natans are compared with actual bones found, it is realized that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are missing! Stay tuned to my next question continuing this.............

Answer 1

Read many Creationist websites?

*drink* I'd answer, but it wouldn't do any good. You're mind's made up. You're not looking for an answer, you're just trying to poke holes in evolution, with no understanding of any more than the barest basics of it.

Answer 2

Do you really want an answer? How's this for blowing you hypothesis clean out of the water: Whales still have feet. Seriously. Vestigial structures are just one more piece of evidence that supports evolution. What exactly do you have?

And here is a slightly more thorough reason why you are wrong:
Claim CC216.1:
There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1994. When is a whale a whale? Impact 250 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=379
Response:
The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.


Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).

The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).

Answer 3

There are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.

Would you care to explain the Law of Fossil Session to me and how creationism fits in? See the fossils are sorted in the geology. A relative order that life showed up on the planet can be determinate independent of any dating. There is no way a single random event like the flood would sort things so pristinely worldwide. Here is a nice simple chart on a US Government website that has no agenda: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

This chart is a little oversimplified, but it shows 7 major cuts on the animal side, and 6 on the plant side. A flowering plant is NEVER found in a Pennsylvania period Geologic layer for instance. If creationism was right, they should be as common there as they are in Cretaceous layers. They aren't there at all. Conifers (Pines) showed up in the late Pennsylvania period. They should be as common in Devonian layers as they are in the Jurassic layers. They aren't there at all.

The actual record is much more complex. Individual species don't show up out of order. So a T-Rex wouldn't be in any layer other than a Jurassic one.

There are way way way more arguments than this one. I just like it because it is easy to understand and the flood answer doesn’t even sound reasonable to the uneducated.

Answer 4

Why would we waste our breath?
You only oppose evolution because you think the Bible is the lateral infallible "Word" of God. That makes you a frightened Idolater. Scriptures are good for inspiration and serve as testimonial to God. The "Word" however lives in the heart and all the scriptures in the world are useless when you know yourself and the Father.

Silly Pharisees, books are for reading.

Not worshiping.

Agape

♥Blessed Be♥
♥=∞

Answer 5

Didn't life originate in the oceans but evolutionists? And if they did, why did creatures return to the sea, if they'd evolved to a higher state out of the water.

Answer 6

a "few" transitional forms? a FEW?!?!?!

you also speak as though evolution is a religion where the dogma is accepted as "truth" no matter what the evidence...you are wrong. science is the seeking of truth, and it is a quest that will never end. Your religion quit seeking truth centuries ago.

Answer 7

Consider otters, pinnipeds, and even penguins. Now imagine that something like them lived long ago, and gave rise to the cetacean.

Evolving to a fishlike shape is something that has happened more than once. See also "ichthyosaur."

Answer 8

Some people just try to find REAl answers to questions. You cant blame them for trying.
Any ways there are ALOT of things in religions that do not hold up, and cant not be explained.

Answer 9

Well, you can also look at embyronic development, skeletons, stuff like this. Not just a few transitional animal forms.

Answer 10

This question belongs in the Science category. I have a feeling you've gotten some bad information from a creationist propaganda site.

Answer 11

Did you copy and paste most of that? It has all been said before. If it can't be explained now God did it right? God needs no explanation but you want scientific proof of anything else when you have no "faith" in science.