Godfixated said:
I was asked a couple days ago to post a topic about evidence against evolution; so, I'll start with most glaring and obvious of this evidence: The Lack of Transitional forms.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If a criminal leaves their blood and hair at a crime scene but fails to leave their fingerprints are they let go? There is also DNA evidence and the nested hierarchies that demonstrate common ancestory between species. Fossils are but one line of evidence.
Even the often touted Australipithescene australis or Homo erectus is not an exactly bonafide precursor to Homo sapiens, even though scientists will say they are, there is no proof that they actually were mankind's ancestors. They could have been a different species all entirely.
Firstly, you are right. Only DNA can be used to determine direct ancestory. However, these fossil species are still intermediate because the have a mix of ape-like and human-like features, exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.
Secondly, the formation of new species has been observed numerous times. Saying that they were "separate species" actually supports the theory of evolution, since that is what it predicts to begin with.
Plus, there is a lack of transitional forms from those hominids to the humans of today.
You are playing Zeno's Paradox. For every new transitional fossil found you can claim that there are now two new gaps. A single transitional disproves your claims and there are several known transitional fossils in the human lineage.
Also, there are many examples of often touted "transitional forms" being proven that they weren't the missing links that scientists were looking. Let's not forget the infamous horse series where scientists believed that the hyrax evolved into the modern day horse.
I wouldn't listen to Hovind if I were you. Even Answers in Genesis warns creationists not to repeat his dishonest claims.
Not only was this theory proven wrong by the eventual discovery of the hyrax in modern day, but also many of the fossilized animals in the series had conspicuously different amounts of ribs, sich as one species have 10 ribs, while the next species in the series had 12, and then the next had 10 again.
Let me get this straight. The fossils changed over time which makes evolution false? Species changing over time is exactly what evolution predicts.
Another example of this can be seen with the Ceolocanth, a fossilized fish who was said to be be one of the first to walk on to dry land because appendable fins. This theory was later shattered by fishermen catching Ceolocanths off of Madagascar. Scientists later discovered that Ceolocanths were deep sea fish. Those are just two examples off the top of my head.
This is the poorest example of all. Coelocanths are a group of fish comprising 80 known species, both living and extinct. The living species of coelocanth (I believe there are two now) are found nowhere in the fossil record. Also, the living species are larger than any fossil species and they also differ anatomically from the fossil species.
Secondly, coelocanths belong to a larger group called the lobe-finned fish. Within this larger group are transitionals that are intermediate between fish and amphibians. However, no scientist has ever claimed that a species of coelocanth is our direct ancestor. The closest living fish relative of terrestrial vertebrates is the lobe finned lungfish, which is clearly not a coelocanth.
You will not impress anyone by repeating dishonest trash from creationist sites. I would brush up on your biology before making more bold claims such as that found in the opening post.
