When Creationists read a list of transitional fossils, what occurs mentally?

Question

How do they dismiss so many examples? It seems more difficult than just believing in both God and evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

CL -- So you want a picture of the past? This is like asking for a picture of any murder, otherwise, no matter what evidence we have, we can't convict.

Answer 1

I long ago came up with why I think they simply appear to be unable to PROCESS the evidence that virtually stares them in the face..and even among those who have decent I.Q's, and aren't so willfully ignorant in other areas.

I am not convinced now that it is a WILLFUL ignorance but more of a PROTECTIVE AND subconscious employment of DENIAL to protect their psyche..their SELF CONCEPT. Our psyche ..our self-concepts are strongly developed as children. Some more than others..and if we have something threaten it..and try to replace it with something they have been taught is BAD or WRONG..then their subconscious will place a protective mechanism to prevent that.

I maintain that every "creationist" I've spoken with is in denial that they are animals, no different than any other animal life form on planet earth. Their self-concept is that they are ABOVE and SEPARATE in some manner from all other animals....they believe that to be an ANIMAL is somehow degrading..their psyche rejects this..because THIS is what Evolutionary process understanding and acceptance TRULY threatens. It does NOT threaten the notion of a Creator or divine creative force. It only threatens a literal acceptance of the Genesis story but most importantly to the ability of one to understand biology..it threatens their SELF CONCEPT derived on their beliefs based on thinking that they are a separate entity that is above and apart from all other life.

ONLY if and WHEN they do not see that being CONNECTED to all other life is NOT demeaning..can they process the information.

This is why many millions of THEISTS such as myself have no problem with UNDERSTANDING biology. It doesn't threaten my notion of God to accept the reality before me, nor does my self-concept of being an animal related to all life demean me.

When my child was in the first grade he tried to explain to his school teacher how he found all the different forms of transitional whale fossils at a museum fascinating...there was also photo of a whale recently captured that had tiny, vestigial back legs. He was excited about his new knowledge and discovery and he couldn't believe she told him, "there are no such things".. He said.."MOM we SAW THEM with our own two EYES! How can she say they don't EXIST?!"

I will never forget that revelation to ME, that a child without such a notion of it being demeaning to be related to all other life could clearly see something that an "educated" but fundamentalist indoctrinated grown woman was apparently incapable of "seeing".


Edit to note
I don't believe in evolution. I believe in God. No faith is involved in acceptance of tested theories through scientific method. I have acceptance of the REALITY of the process of evolution in the same manner that I have acceptance of other aspects of the real and observable world around me.

Since modern medicine and biology ( genetic studies, immunology etc) are dependent on application of evolutionary theory it is imperative to the integrity of my profession and my acceptance of reality to not live in such denial as those who remain ignorant whether willful or subconsciously incapable.

I'm an animal..and so are you. Live with it..thumbs down or not. :)

Yes, ALL fossils..since all life is in transition..are in essence transitionals.

what they are often trying to prove is "morphing" which is a strawman fallacy.

Look in the mirror for another transitional.

There are also other living " transitionals" as the creationist uses that term to mean animals who display characteristics of some kind of arbitrary " half and half" creature. Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop miniature legs (known as atavism). I used a search engine and by typing "vestigial limbs in Cetaceans" and you can find more than one photo of such a creature.

Answer 2

When I read the wikipedia list, here's what occurred mentally-
I thought, "wikipedia? wikipedia? now there's a towering bastion of scientific knowledge. Who needs Harvard?"
Then I thought, "Did this Y/A questioner read the entire article. Like the sentence that concludes, "...the very term transitional fossil is essentially a misconception?" The wikipedia entry also says "...the fossils listed...fit the common usage of the phrase".
The"transitional organism" is described as "morphologically close" to the common ancestor. So the change in the shape of the head of a trilobite is proof of evolution, not an expression of a gene that exists in its chromosomes?

Answer 3

Since all species are supposed to be in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

I took that right from that page.
There is way too much time between the examples.

Next...............


Get A Grip

Answer 4

I think C.L. Richardson has it right.

They'll ask you for pictures, because a list isn't enough.
After you produce pictures, they'll ask to see the actual fossil.
When you produce the fossil, they'll point to the parts that didn't get fossilized and say it doesn't count because the whole skeleton wasn't fossilized.
When you produce a full fossilized skeleton of a transitional form, they'll say that it's either one or the other.

My point is that they'll just keep pushing back the issue until it becomes an unresolvable epistemological issue dealing with the nature of knowledge itself.

Answer 5

Did you read the part that said the term transitional fossils is a misconception or was that a mental breakdown?

Answer 6

I guess they figure the gaps between the "transitional fossils" are sufficiently large... heck, I don't know how they convince themselves

Answer 7

A creationists brain isn't much of a brain but more of a CD Player which plays "My God Is An Awesome God" repeatedly until death.

Answer 8

The brain misfires and causes them to forget what they have just read, replacing it with an old episode from All in the Family.

Answer 9

More wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists.

The fact is they don't exist. That is surprising since they were supposedly "naturally selected" to survive better than their earlier forms.

Answer 10

uproarious laughter since there are no transitional fossils...unless you count the stuff at the back of the closet...