Why do creationists deny that the following are transitional fossils?

Question

Fish to Amphibians:

Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops

Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles):

Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris

Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals :

Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon

Diapsid reptiles to birds:

Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis

Evolution of whales :

Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon

Evolution of the horse:

Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus

Non-human apes to modern humans:

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus

Over and over they simply chant "There are no transitional fossils, and even scientists admit this."

Answer 1

Basically, they're children in denial.

Answer 2

Overall a nice short list. The sequence of some is wrong (Eusthenopteron is before Tiktaalik), some biggies are omitted (the synapsid Lystrosaurus was ancestral to all modern mammals) and a few hundred others could have been added, if space permitted.

A more important tool than fossils for determining evolutionary sequences is the burgeoning field of molecular genetics. Now we are finding and decoding chunks of deactivated fish/amphibian/reptile genes in the junk DNA sequences of humans that is giving an increasingly lucid picture of how evolution has worked on a molecular level.

But B-Krak, you're not correct either in claiming that all fossils are transitional. Any species that has not left a descendant species cannot by definition be considered a transitional. Only species that have left desendant species can be considered transitional.

Answer 3

So what you assert is that we've fossils that practice fish turning out to be snakes? Is that what you assert? by way of fact this is the gist of evolution. There are no transitional fossils. The DNA for ALL creatures we see as we talk, have been contemporary while created with the aid of God. Speciation, my chum, isn't a clean creature- this is evolution. Speciation is what happens once you have the primary finch. It lives in numerous components on the element of one yet another. Then can circulate in and among themselves and procreate with one yet another and all they're going to produce would be different finches. Then a considerable cataclysm happens say the splitting of pangaea interior the international flood. by way of fact the finches circulate out and repopulate their specie they get separated. Now the single removed from the primary team starts off changing. Their calls are diverse and their feathers replace colorings. whether, by way of fact of speciation, one thousand years later the primary finch and the secondary finch could be extra mutually and that they are in a position to procreate this is speciation.

Answer 4

The science and the evidence is real, my friend. The problem is the combination of assumption and conclusion that is faulty.

I am a Christian who believes that the world was created by God in six days. But the definition of day has a much broader meaning than "six 24-hour periods". In English, day can mean an unquantified period of time.

In a system of logic, if the assumption is mistaken, then any conclusion will be wrong. Any system of logic that includes the assumption that there is no God and He did not create the universe, can never reach a correct conclusion.

Read up at the following link if you really want to know the truth. Many people, including former Atheists, have met Him, and know that He is the Life and Light of the worlds that He created.

Answer 5

Well - apart from the fact that not one of the apparent creationists supported their ideas with any relavent scientific information - it's a little frustrating to see all the thumb's down votes to the point where their answers are hidden.
Nobody wants to see a bunch of evolutionists supporting an evolutionist. We want to see a debate, an argument - if you will.
Sort of like the people who picket KKK rallies and BOO the entire time. Whatever - I may not agree, but I'll at least listen.. even if afterwards I'm just like, "Dah.. I just don't understand your logic, I'm sorry."
If we can't at least listen to what they have to say, we're no better than them closing their minds to rationality.
I personally don't have the patience to unhide every poorly rated answer to read it..

Either way - I happened across a particular "creationist defender site" (full of total crap) that gives their explanations as to why these "are not transitional fossils."
Of course - it will be pure validation for creationists, because they won't look past the fact that it's a complete misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the facts.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

Scroll down to paleontology.

Answer 6

Wow! too many to answer one by one. I'll concentrate on the last since this will definitely not pass your qualification for a best answer anyway. =)

The drawings of the progression of man that we see are somewhat deceiving (dark, hairy to fair skin, almost hairless body) . Some fossils of human ancestors collected are only fragments (partial skeleton, few bones, cranium, "a" tooth, etc.) so i wonder how they were able to deduce the image of the whole fossil.
e.g. Lucy's (Australopithecus) feet bones were not found (how can one deduce he can walk straighter than an ape and less straighter than a man?)
Ardiphitecus (kadabba) - insufficient bones, mostly teeth

While there are scientists that evolutionists claim that are in favor of the theory of evolution of man, there are also those that are against evolution. It is common even for a published literature to be refuted by another study. It is also common for people, even scientists, to take sides, depending on which scientist he believes is more reliable.

Answer 7

Becuase many christians can not merge the theories of creation and evolution and realize that they are not exclusive to eachother. The bible simply states that God spoke creatures into being, over a period of seven days. It doesn't say that he spoke them all into being at the exact same time, or in the exact way that they look now. It also says that 1 day on earth is not the same as 1 day to God - it specifically mentions it being 10,000 years (i.e. 70,000 years for just creation) in one chapter, other verses indicate it could be longer. It's very possible, even likely, that God used evolution to finish his creationary process.

Christians have trouble with transitionary fossils becuase they are afraid that t. fossils mean that evolution is real and creation is not.

Answer 8

They have to maintain this belief in order to maintain salvation and a hope in the afterlife.

CJ is a perfect example. He talks of education and study as if it were a religion, because he doesn't understand it, but worse, is not willing to truthfully learn about it, because he has been lied to by religious people.

Evolution is a lie, is a statement based on faith, just like his religion, and he will hold on to this idea because it supports another faith based idea. The search for truth and understanding is not welcome in a faith based arena.

Rev Al is similar, accept he relies on statements made by Gould in 1977 or Darwin much earlier than that. The list of transitional fossils weren't even available when these quotes were made. Every year paleontologist find more and more examples of animals in transitional forms.

The fact there are different races of humans prove the existence of evolution, especially when compared with the biblical theory that we all decended from Noah and his immediate family. Was Shem Chinese? Was Ham African? Was Japeth Siberian. There are way too many variants of the human form, for evolution not to be working.

Each of us is a transitional creature.

Answer 9

Well, and I do say it: All fossils are in full transition. There is not one fossil that is in a transitional phase. Meaning "half Reptile, half bird."

Plus, understand the eyes cannot be from evolution. Even Darwin admitted that. There's so many complicated nerves and etc, that seem impossible to have evolved. And the brain is a true masterpiece in us. It controls a lot to functions and emotions.

Answer 10

They just play their game. They'll say "Well, those aren't transitions, those are separate species" and ask you to find ANOTHER one in between that one and the next. They don't even realize the fallacy in this. They could go on like this forever. If you found one they'd do the same thing again...and again. There is no fossil they would ever approve as being transitional, even in theory. They don't even understand their own definition of a transitional form. You give them what they ask for and they just tell you it's not good enough.

B-Krak hit on it.

Answer 11

Because the people who say this have no idea what they are talking about. Don't they think that if there really was no evidence for evolution, someone would have already noticed? Or do they think that they are more intelligent than 150 years of scientists?