Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[gluadys]

This is from the article, The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb:

Thanks, Pete. That's helpful and yet not.

Somewhere in this thread someone used the term "ill-suited" to describe the Tiktaalik forelimb's capacity for terrestrial life. I thought it was from the original link, but it wasn't, and I am not going to pursue it.

My concern was that shinbits reaction to this description (and any of the descriptions in the press articles) is that such conclusions are mere assumptions--that we have no way to know what the reality was.

But we do. By applying basic engineering principles to the structural form of an organism, we can deduce what it can and cannot do, including how much weight it can bear.

So, in this case we have a limb capable of limited excursions onto land. And that conclusion is not an assumption, but is derived from a detailed examination of the limb.

It is also clear that whatever its capacities to move about on land, it is essentially a fish, an aquatic animal, whose principal means of locomotion was swimming.

The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water.​

From the Science link in post #1

Those limbs tell us something about the evolution of limbs. Tiktaalik was definitely not a terrestrial animal, but had developed muscular, bony limbs and a strong pectoral girdle that had helped it prop itself up on the substrate, perhaps even holding itself partly out of the water. Those jointed digits were capable of extension and flexion, splaying out when they were pressed against the ground.​

From the Pharyngula link a few posts later.

So the take-home point is not whether Tiktaalik was able to move on land--that was never fundamentally in question--but that the conclusion that it did, that it was part of the process of adapting to terrestrial life, is not an assumption.

As the Pharyngula article points out:

"The limbs alone have a whole paper dedicated to them."

Personally, I detest reading primary literature in science. It's filled with numbers and graphs and technical terms I don't understand. What I do understand is that this is valuable evidence for other scientists to analyse. And that conclusions based on such expert analysis are not assumptions based on bias.

They are conclusions based on detailed study. And there is a good deal more that can be learned from study than most creationists are aware of.

 

[shinbits]

No, I'm saying the sentiment, "Look how brilliantly designed that is; there must have been an intelligent agent behind it" is wholly unwarranted if there is a structure demonstrably more effective for the given task.

You are demonstrating your opinion, but you don't seem to get that.

You are saying, "Yeah, it may be well built for water and can last for long times underwater and can even sleep there---but come on can't it be done better?"

Not all birds can fly with the manueverability of a humminbird: but that doesn't mean all other birds aren't intelligently built. Not all cats are as fast as a cheetah or as strong as a lion; but that doesn't mean that all other cats are not intellilgently designed.


You are only nit-picking a well designed animal so that you won't lose an argument. That is not honest.

 

[dad]

No, that's the conclusion drawn from evidence.

One of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. Nothing exclusive here that mandates this creature as descended from anything else but God's creatures!

Actually, there is not a full spectrum, which is the whole problem for creationism. We do not see species that violate the twin nested hierarchies predicted by the theory of evolution. We don't see any bats with feathers or birds with teats, yet both are part of a full spectrum.

Then perhaps twin nested hierarchies have some relation to 'kinds'? If so, we would not expect it to be violated. But I don't see how evolving and adapting that started from God's created creatures does not fit this just fine.

They did? Then why doesn't this transitional have claws for climbing trees?

First of all, it isn't determined yet it is a transitional. But if it was, why would it need to climb trees? Seems like the object of the game for this thing may have been getting around a planet that was both water, and dry parts. Must every thing act like a squirel or monkey?

I find it strange that creationists ask for transitional fossils and then dismiss them categorically when shown them.

I understand that. Most seem to feel allowing evolution of any kind, opens the door to there not being a creation. Personally, I don't care, long as it evoluted in the last 6000 years!

The theory of evolution predicted the age and morphological characteristics of this transitional. Creationism is incapable of making these predictions. Therefore, the theory of evolution is by far the better explanation.

A full range of creatures is expected. I don't see anything in the bible about a bunch of creatures to watch out for that God didn't create? Why is this one different, it had different abilities that were needed at the time.

Of course it adapted, that's the whole point. The problem for you is to show us why this adaptation has to stop.

Why, "of course'? How do I know HGod din't make em just like that, first of all? (not that I care if it adapted).
Next, why would I care if it "stopped"!!!? Remember, man and all plants and animals, etc were here AT THE TIME!!!! How some slimy creature of special purpose may have needed to adapt doesn't matter much!

Secondly, this transitional is a fulfilled prediction of the theory of evolution. It is exactly what we would expect to find if the theory of evolution is true. If your type of skepticism were extended to the courtroom, then you would expect the prosecutor to rule out Leprechauns plantin fingerprints at the scene of a crime before physical evidence is accepted.

The first lifeform is the Leprechaun here, not creation. Don't blame me if godless evolution predicts what creation provided! Again, it just shows the theory was intelligently designed. But creation was MORE intelligently designed!

[/i]

Yes, if you were to design the transitional expected if evolution were true. What they were saying is that this fossil fits predictions to a tee.

So what? That's like saying God created 1000 creatures, 400 went extinct, and evolution predicts we will find many of them one day!!! Whopee do.

Fish in the open or deep see are strong and powerful swimmers. What they are saying is that the fish is shaped differently than what would be expected in a fish found in the deep or open water.

Who said it was designed for 'open water'?

Again, this transitional fits the predictions of the theory of evolution. What follows this transitional is a series of species more and more adapted to life on land, and behind it a series of species less and less adapted to life on land.

But, similar creatures were all creations as well. The link is imaginary. 'Gee, lookie here, this creation looks like it came from that creation, and we don't see other creations in the vicinity, so they were the first ones to exist...' No. All creation was here at the time, and evolving or adapting is not a shocker, long as it started with created things, not granny. We were all here at the time, us creatures.

Name one tropical wetland that does not have amphibians and reptiles. If you can't then your arguments is null and void.

Easy. Today's wet areas are not identical to the ones out on the planet shortly after creation. No wetland area had Eden's creatures in it then, till they got there much later. We see them now, cause they goot there long ago! get it?

 

[Split Rock]

The insinuation is that we decended from a long line of things.

That's what gets your dander up, isn't it? That we descended from souless, dirty animals? The next time you talk to Jesus, maybe you should ask him why he made us tetrapods.

I don't believe He would do any such thing. He made a full spectrum to begin with. And if some conditions arose on the planet that required adapting to, the creatures came equiped to do just that.

As my compatriot indicated, he did not made a "full spectrum." He made one that seems to immitate Common Descent. Otherwise, show us a whale with fluffy feathers.

Her pond location, perhaps? Where it came from? How everything that lives MUST have decended from it, and could not have been created, things like that. Not just observing some of the past full spectrum of life and making a claim it all started in the pond!

Ha Ha, dad. As I indicated earlier, we cannot determine if this particular species is of the direct line leading to amphibians. We do know it is one of many (at least 15 named species) of early tetrapods that lived in shallow waters in a number of locations on earth, during the Devonian Period. Any one of them might be the species you seek. Remember, we are dealing with a branching pattern, not a direct line from A to B to C, etc.

So prove the neat creature was not created or adapted, if that is your claim.

How would you recommend I go about proving your God did not *poof* it into existance? Maybe we should start calling you Dr. Dino?

I liked the part where they said, if you set out to design such a thing, this would 'you'd probably come up with something like this'

Yes, it is what we would expect from a transitional.

So don't make claims if you don't really know what it is you are talking about! Is that too much too ask?

I could ask the same of you, but I know all I will ever get from you is Dadology silliness.

OK, so it, unlike clams, or lobster, can't be a sea creature, OK. The only things in water are powerfully propelled?

What I meant was that it did not have the body of an open-water fish.

I don't doubt it did live perhaps in shallow water, maybe also on land somewhat. As I said, it got around the new, wet planet real good. I am not claiming things about this thing, you are. What would I care if it was created or adapted to conditions on the new planet here? Your whole point seems to be, that because God fitted, or made creatures that were multi habitat capable, they must have evolved from the pond. Sorry, that is ridiculous.

Who said "must have?" Common Descent (as part of evolution) is the best scientific theory to explain the distribution and diversity of life on earth, in the past as well as the present. You can believe in creatures *poofed* into existance all you want.

How do you know they were suited? Just being wet doesn't mean it needs to be full of frogs and salamanders. If frogs, etc were creatures made like most plants and animals, I believe, right in or near Eden, why would we expect them way out in various locales around earth in general? Only certain things were made for that job. Now, all that remains is to decide if this was one of the creatures of special purpose - or, if it was one of Eden's creatures that was real good at getting around in the conditions of the planet at the time. Simple.

Go for it dad, we all await your determinations on this.

 

[urbanxy]

Easy. Today's wet areas are not identical to the ones out on the planet shortly after creation. No wetland area had Eden's creatures in it then, till they got there much later. We see them now, cause they goot there long ago! get it?

Are you saying that animals which are adapted to living in wetlands were originally created in the Garden of Eden and then traveled from the garden after The Fall and settled in the wetlands for which they were adapted?

.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You are demonstrating your opinion, but you don't seem to get that.

You are saying, "Yeah, it may be well built for water and can last for long times underwater and can even sleep there---but come on can't it be done better?"

Not all birds can fly with the manueverability of a humminbird: but that doesn't mean all other birds aren't intelligently built. Not all cats are as fast as a cheetah or as strong as a lion; but that doesn't mean that all other cats are not intellilgently designed.

This is not a subjective judgment. We are not comparing a dolphin's lung to a whale's lung. We have fact about dolphins - they live only in an aquatic environment - and another fact about dolphins - they have a respiratory system suitable only for extracting oxygen from air.

Now, if all aquatic animals had such respiratory systems, I would have no foundation for my argument. But they don't and I do.

You are only nit-picking a well designed animal so that you won't lose an argument. That is not honest.

You are harnessing an impressive amount of dissonance at the moment.

 

[dad]

Are you saying that animals which are adapted to living in wetlands were originally created in the Garden of Eden and then traveled from the garden after The Fall and settled in the wetlands for which they were adapted?

.

That is yet to be determined. They have only two categories to fall under, well say three. 1) They were Eden's creatures 2) They were outer planet at large special purpose creatures. 3) Eden's creatures that quickly adapted as they spread out first from Eden area.

 

[dad]

That's what gets your dander up, isn't it? That we descended from souless, dirty animals? The next time you talk to Jesus, maybe you should ask him why he made us tetrapods.

Right, I ruffle at falsehood.

As my compatriot indicated, he did not made a "full spectrum." He made one that seems to immitate Common Descent. Otherwise, show us a whale with fluffy feathers.

Who said God made whales with fluffy feathers? Ridiculous, sounds like some inter old age inbred thing you need to work out yourself. God made whales, not big quails, He never fails, and deserves a few hails.

Ha Ha, dad. As I indicated earlier, we cannot determine if this particular species is of the direct line leading to amphibians. We do know it is one of many (at least 15 named species) of early tetrapods that lived in shallow waters in a number of locations on earth, during the Devonian Period.

Theres a lot you don't know. Try sticking to what you do know.

Any one of them might be the species you seek. Remember, we are dealing with a branching pattern, not a direct line from A to B to C, etc.

I don't seek a species. I look in wonder at them all, even these thingies, good for land and sea, or puddles, or whatever. Created or adapted from creations, no doubt.

How would you recommend I go about proving your God did not *poof* it into existance? Maybe we should start calling you Dr. Dino?

Man wasn't 'poofed' more like, 'scooped' from dirt. But that is a good quation, what makes it necessary to imagine things were not created? Nothing!

Yes, it is what we would expect from a transitional.

So would I. I would also expect the same if it were a created creature, though. So, what makes it absolutely certain it was an adaptation from another creature? (Just because you happen to think we started in the Pond?)

I could ask the same of you, but I know all I will ever get from you is Dadology silliness.

I don't make claims unless I know what I am talking about. Neither does God.

What I meant was that it did not have the body of an open-water fish.

OK, nor of a monkey, or a lobster. So?? It seems to have been more of a wet new earth get around thingie, than a fast sea creature anyhow.

Who said "must have?" Common Descent (as part of evolution) is the best scientific theory to explain the distribution and diversity of life on earth, in the past as well as the present. You can believe in creatures *poofed* into existance all you want.

Praising it, and patting it on the back doesn't provide reason that this thing was a relative of some little virus, or bacteria, now does it? Best you could hope for is that it may have adapted, and...so?

Go for it dad, we all await your determinations on this.

Why would I care whether it was a creation creature, or something adapted from one?? I'm not trying to link back to Granny.

 

[Nooj]

I've got a question. What is the actual definition of a transitional fossil? I've gotten some very strange definitions e.g half cat/dog from creationists and some ambiguous ones e.g fossil that has intermediate features between two related lineages.

I think it would help all parties involved if this question is cleared up.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I've got a question. What is the actual definition of a transitional fossil? I've gotten some very strange definitions e.g half cat/dog from creationists and some ambiguous ones e.g fossil that has intermediate features between two related lineages.

The second definition is what I learned as a definition of a transitional. Like you said, it's an organism that has features from more than one taxa.

For example, Archaeopteryx has features of both theropod dinosaurs and birds. Hence, it's a transitional between those taxa.

However, a transitional does not necessarily mean it is a direct ancestor of whatever taxa it is transitional for. Archaeopteryx may not be a direct ancestor of modern birds. But it is still transitional because it shares features of those groups and occurs at roughly the time when birds were evolving.

Hmm, I have a feeling I may have confused you more than helped. It might help to look at some cladograms, since that makes the branching nature of evolution a little clearer. And it's important to understand that in order to really understand the concept of a transitional as it applies to evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What I do understand is that this is valuable evidence for other scientists to analyse. And that conclusions based on such expert analysis are not assumptions based on bias.

They are conclusions based on detailed study. And there is a good deal more that can be learned from study than most creationists are aware of.

I think this point needs to be hammered home, reinforced, and hammered home again.

Most people don't have a clue what goes on in the sciences. Heck, I'm one of those "most people". But what I have seen and witnessed, I know there is waaaay more work behind the scenes than most people appreciate. And you certainly don't get an appreciation for it reading some quarter-page article in a newspaper.

This is why it's particularly grating to me when I see creationists pass ad-hoc judgements on scientific finds they've read about in some news article. They simply don't know the level of knowledge and work that goes into analyzing things like this find.

 

[Nooj]

The second definition is what I learned as a definition of a transitional. Like you said, it's an organism that has features from more than one taxa.

For example, Archaeopteryx has features of both theropod dinosaurs and birds. Hence, it's a transitional between those taxa.

However, a transitional does not necessarily mean it is a direct ancestor of whatever taxa it is transitional for. Archaeopteryx may not be a direct ancestor of modern birds. But it is still transitional because it shares features of those groups and occurs at roughly the time when birds were evolving.

Hmm, I have a feeling I may have confused you more than helped. It might help to look at some cladograms, since that makes the branching nature of evolution a little clearer. And it's important to understand that in order to really understand the concept of a transitional as it applies to evolution.

You made perfect sense.

So Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil because it shares features between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, like weight-bearing wrist structures and ribs. But that doesn't necessarily mean Tiktaalik is the direct ancestor of the tetrapods, us included.

But when I said that a transitional fossil is a fossil that shares intermediate features between related lineages, isn't that sort of right? Say, therapod dinosaurs and birds. I know Archy wasn't a direct ancestor of birds, but therapod dinosaurs and birds are still related lineages aren't they?

Anyway:

Transitional fossil- Fossil that has intermediate features between taxa.

It's a fairly simple definition, but one that I haven't come across on the internet. Even talkorigins isn't clear about it.

Thanks Pete.

 

[Vermithrax]

Creation is where God created all life in a few days. It is expected that some things went extinct, and some things adapted. This is news? Therefore, when we find remains of departed creatures, it is no surprise. What is it about dead creatures no longer with us you find doesn't fit this picture!?

What I find interesting is that you didn't address my specific points. Instead you attempt to change the playing field.

 

[USincognito]

Personally, I detest reading primary literature in science. It's filled with numbers and graphs and technical terms I don't understand. What I do understand is that this is valuable evidence for other scientists to analyse. And that conclusions based on such expert analysis are not assumptions based on bias.

I'm quoting and bluing this because I think it sums up the feelings of a lot of the Evolution supports very concisely. For every Dr. GH, grmorton, Jet Black and KerrMetric on this forum, there are dozens of us who History majors (like myself), computer programmers, housewives, social workers, accountants high school students, etc. who, while we each have our own area of technical interest, have our eyes glaze over when we read the primary scientific literature when it comes to paleontology or other evolution related areas.

I guess, for me, it comes down to a question I keep asking Creationists about Hominid fossils. They exist and how do you explain that? The replies are always ad hoc claims of hoaxes or tangents unrelated to the fossils in question. Either that or they make wild claims about "evolutionist bias" (while at the same time saying since science adapts to new discoveries makes it somehow faulty) or appealing to some EAC straw man.

I might find the intricate details of strata and measurements of the angle a particular fossils pelvic girdle had mind numbing, but I understand the importance and validity of where the fossil was found and it's morphology despite that.

I dare any Creationist to check out the "Tetrapods" thread where Jet Black and Dr. GH both pointed out very salient problems with their possible objections to the Tiktaalik discovery. All I've seen in this thread is ad hocery and arguments from incredulity.

 

[Dr.GH]

What I do understand is that this is valuable evidence for other scientists to analyse. And that conclusions based on such expert analysis are not assumptions based
on bias.

They are conclusions based on detailed study. And there is a good deal more that can be learned from study than most creationists are aware of.

I was at an elementry school today, and one of the teachers has a human skull donated to the school by a medical doctor whose child was a student at the school.

I showed the class how we could analyse the skull to learn somethings about the living person. We could determine that the skull had been an adult male Caucasion 40 to 55 years old at death, poor, and with minor dental problems related to pipe smoking and poor dental hygene.

The best part was showing how each conclusion was the result of scientific evidence and reasoning and not just a blind wishfullness.

 

[dad]

What I find interesting is that you didn't address my specific points. Instead you attempt to change the playing field.

Well. OK, I'll try again, since you didn't like the first one. You said.
Creationism makes no predictions. Creationism has never made nor published a single prediction. It is a magic wand that you wave. A discovery like the one in the OP is made, and you say "Creationism predicts this." A shame you can't prove that you made such a prediction. Retroactive predictions are like prophecy after the predicted event. Completely useless.

Creationism predicts all things that ever lived were created, and adapted from the creations. That covers everything you will ever find.
Regarding creatures that are found and where we came from it more than predicted. It is a matter of recorded history!!! No special predictions needed for a devonian era water and land creature that could really get around. It's covered. I don't need to predict the outcome of the second world war here, it is history!!! We know about it. Now if we hear a little spy story, or whatnot, shedding a little light on something we don't know, fine, it doesn't really change history. And YECs got history!!!!!!!
But we do have hundreds of predictions on the future, all come true. Whether naming a king 150 years before he was born (Cyrus), or foretelling the end of Babylon with writing on the wall, or the virgin birth of the saviour, we got it all!

So, your points are covered. Despite your little disingeneous insult. Cheers.

 

[JohnR7]

they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

Well you said it and I agree, there is just not enough evidence. Even Darwin was painfully aware of the lack of fossil evidence to back up his theory and claims.

 

[Split Rock]

Right, I ruffle at falsehood.

No, you ruffle at the implication that mankind evolved from "things," as you called them.

Who said God made whales with fluffy feathers? Ridiculous, sounds like some inter old age inbred thing you need to work out yourself. God made whales, not big quails, He never fails, and deserves a few hails.

Nice poetry! A+

My point was that we do not see transitionals between the "wrong" classes. Such as mammals and birds. Find one and it will cast some serious doubts on common descent.

Theres a lot you don't know. Try sticking to what you do know.

Right. While the article in the OP was poorly worded, if you read what the scientists are saying, no one is claiming that this species is the direct ancestor of amphibians. What we are saying is that it is representative of the type of animal that was transitional between fish and amphibians (tetrapods). Remember, there are at least 14 other named species that are also in this category. Also, they are all in the right strata to be transitional. That is what we are saying.

I don't seek a species. I look in wonder at them all, even these thingies, good for land and sea, or puddles, or whatever. Created or adapted from creations, no doubt.

OK

Man wasn't 'poofed' more like, 'scooped' from dirt. But that is a good quation, what makes it necessary to imagine things were not created? Nothing!

OK Scooped from dirt and then *poofed* on.... got it. And you claim Common Descent is ridiculous??

So would I. I would also expect the same if it were a created creature, though. So, what makes it absolutely certain it was an adaptation from another creature? (Just because you happen to think we started in the Pond?)

Provide us evidence it was *poofed* into existance and we will consider it. Otherwise, we know of no other manner than evolution.

I don't make claims unless I know what I am talking about. Neither does God.

All because you are convinced you know what you are talking about, doesn't make it so, does it, dad?

OK, nor of a monkey, or a lobster. So?? It seems to have been more of a wet new earth get around thingie, than a fast sea creature anyhow.

OK

Praising it, and patting it on the back doesn't provide reason that this thing was a relative of some little virus, or bacteria, now does it? Best you could hope for is that it may have adapted, and...so?

I'll be happy with acknowledgement of the adaption part for now, dad. we can talk about bacteria latter. P.S. Viruses probably didn't evolve into eukaryotes like the species in question.

Why would I care whether it was a creation creature, or something adapted from one?? I'm not trying to link back to Granny.

We aren't trying to do that in this thread either. Why not let that be a topic for another thread, hmmm?

 

[dad]

No, you ruffle at the implication that mankind evolved from "things," as you called them.

Tomato, tomaato. A rose is a rose is a rose.

Nice poetry! A+

My point was that we do not see transitionals between the "wrong" classes. Such as mammals and birds. Find one and it will cast some serious doubts on common descent.

Perhaps, then transitionals are kind oriented, (adapt just from their own kind) or the created kind to begin with after all.

Right. While the article in the OP was poorly worded, if you read what the scientists are saying, no one is claiming that this species is the direct ancestor of amphibians. What we are saying is that it is representative of the type of animal that was transitional between fish and amphibians (tetrapods).

So, this 'type' of animal this thing was a representative of, you don't know anything about, then? About the only thing you seem willing to say for almost sure, is that it was transitional! Doesn't matter from exactly what, apparently. Long as it is the link from amphibians and fish, that will take you on the imaginary road to the Pond! But you nned to pause, and ask yourself why it may not have actually been simply a created creature for the world God knew well existed at the time. WE can't get any further than that, even to discuss if it was an adaptation from another creature, because all you are concerned about it seems is fitting it in evo old age belief.

Remember, there are at least 14 other named species that are also in this category. Also, they are all in the right strata to be transitional. That is what we are saying.

You call that earth period of wetness and dry land a transitional time, because a lot of created creatures were able to make the transition between habitats! That is what I am saying. Bottom line, you have no idea, so don't teach it in school.

OK Scooped from dirt and then *poofed* on.... got it. And you claim Common Descent is ridiculous??

Yes. Intelligent Almighty design, and deliberate creation is no harder to believe than an artist painting. A virus, or bacteria, or whatnot little germish thingy appearing in a pond, accidently producing all God's wonderful life on earth is truly insulting to my intelligence.

Provide us evidence it was *poofed* into existance and we will consider it. Otherwise, we know of no other manner than evolution.

You have no evidence either way. Claiming it all created it's little self is not real science. It is pure religion and belief, that presently has mandatory worship in schools. When you shortly see the world totally change, and realize we have entered the end of the world, truly, remember that a good part of the reason is God will not allow children to be so abused much longer, in my opinion.

All because you are convinced you know what you are talking about, doesn't make it so, does it, dad?

If I make a claim, like God created things, it is because the bible tells me so. If I say you have no proof of your old age belief, it is because you don't. What "is so" must have solid evidence. And/or the bible.

I'll be happy with acknowledgement of the adaption part for now, dad. we can talk about bacteria latter. P.S. Viruses probably didn't evolve into eukaryotes like the species in question.

I used virus, because an article I read recently suggested that the first lifeform may have been one. But, all such ideas are pure, unadulterated belief, so they matter not a whit either way.

 

[dlamberth]

I think this point needs to be hammered home, reinforced, and hammered home again.

Most people don't have a clue what goes on in the sciences. Heck, I'm one of those "most people". But what I have seen and witnessed, I know there is waaaay more work behind the scenes than most people appreciate. And you certainly don't get an appreciation for it reading some quarter-page article in a newspaper.

This is why it's particularly grating to me when I see creationists pass ad-hoc judgements on scientific finds they've read about in some news article. They simply don't know the level of knowledge and work that goes into analyzing things like this find.

Watching this thread I find the Creationist attitude amaizing.

Even when faced with transitional fosseils, even when it's right there for them to look at, they want to deny what their own eyes are seeing. What's the deal?

For years, Creationist have been saying that if evolution were true that we would see these types of fossils. Well we are looking at just what they say they need...and still they deny it.

Sheesh!!

.