No Missing Links?

[Loudmouth]

In recent threads, creationists have been vacillating between two positions.

Position 1: There are no missing links in the fossil record. They argue that the lack of fossil evidence for evolution should allow them to reject the theory.

Position 2: Similarities between living or fossil species can not be used as evidence for evolution.

It seems to me that those two positions contradict each other. At one moment, creationists are saying that we can use fossils as evidence for or against evolution. A missing link is a fossil that has intermediate morphology between two species, by its very definition. Creationists, at least some of the time, are saying that finding fossils with intermediate morphology would be evidence for evolution.

However, once we start discussing the actual fossils, all of the sudden the fossils no longer count. We are told that similar features shared between species, living and extinct, can't be used as evidence even though those same creationists tried to use "gaps" in the fossil record as evidence against evolution being true.

Can a creationist please explain this contradiction?

 

[RickG]

In recent threads, creationists have been vacillating between two positions.

Position 1: There are no missing links in the fossil record. They argue that the lack of fossil evidence for evolution should allow them to reject the theory.

Position 2: Similarities between living or fossil species can not be used as evidence for evolution.

It might be interesting to ask evoniers (evolution deniers) what they think the academic paleontology course structure entails.

 

[Split Rock]

In recent threads, creationists have been vacillating between two positions.

Position 1: There are no missing links in the fossil record. They argue that the lack of fossil evidence for evolution should allow them to reject the theory.

Position 2: Similarities between living or fossil species can not be used as evidence for evolution.

It seems to me that those two positions contradict each other. At one moment, creationists are saying that we can use fossils as evidence for or against evolution. A missing link is a fossil that has intermediate morphology between two species, by its very definition. Creationists, at least some of the time, are saying that finding fossils with intermediate morphology would be evidence for evolution.

However, once we start discussing the actual fossils, all of the sudden the fossils no longer count. We are told that similar features shared between species, living and extinct, can't be used as evidence even though those same creationists tried to use "gaps" in the fossil record as evidence against evolution being true.

Can a creationist please explain this contradiction?

Its basically throwing as much mud as possible against the wall and hoping something sticks. It doesn't matter to most creationists if the arguments they use contradict each other, as long as they get as many out as possible. The only argument that actually matters to them is, "my interpretation of the bible says so." Anything else is frankly a ball of mud used to score points to "win the debate."

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

<edit> evoniers (evolution deniers) <edit>

I think that you just gave the opposition a name that could be used in a derogation yet hysterical way.
Don't ask me to explain -- it's a case of those who know will laugh out loud, the rest will never know.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

<edit> creationists <edit> "my interpretation of the bible says so." <edit>

Does your use of the word 'creationists' only apply to those who are Young Earth Creationists?

Some books are pretty standard grammar, though it can get pretty difficult at times -- when symbolic, metaphorical and various styles of argument have been employed (whether consciously or not)
Generally though private study is encouraged, it's mean to be read to the whole congregation.
Some congregations have set beliefs which determine interpretation and this has led to schisms. i.e. when Martin Luther was focused on justification, and heretical penance.
In England there used to (probably still goes on to some degree now) be an ongoing battle between Protestants and Catholics, over particular doctrines.
In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity which isn't in the Bible, though one finds allusions to it even in Genesis 1 -- was argued about so intensely that it caused a major split.
Though these splits go on, there is still much that unifies Christians - in particular our devotion to Jesus.

 

[RickG]

I think that you just gave the opposition a name that could be used in a derogation yet hysterical way.
Don't ask me to explain -- it's a case of those who know will laugh out loud, the rest will never know.

Feel free to report it to the moderators. If they agree with you it can only be a positive thing, because there are a plethora of derogatory terms that have been used to describe people who accept mainstream science as well.

 

[LoricaLady]

In recent threads, creationists have been vacillating between two positions.

Position 1: There are no missing links in the fossil record. They argue that the lack of fossil evidence for evolution should allow them to reject the theory.

Position 2: Similarities between living or fossil species can not be used as evidence for evolution.

It seems to me that those two positions contradict each other. At one moment, creationists are saying that we can use fossils as evidence for or against evolution. A missing link is a fossil that has intermediate morphology between two species, by its very definition. Creationists, at least some of the time, are saying that finding fossils with intermediate morphology would be evidence for evolution.

However, once we start discussing the actual fossils, all of the sudden the fossils no longer count. We are told that similar features shared between species, living and extinct, can't be used as evidence even though those same creationists tried to use "gaps" in the fossil record as evidence against evolution being true.

Can a creationist please explain this contradiction?

Please explain to me how you can tell a "missing" link from a never existed link? I'd appreciate data on that.

Let's look at a couple of fossils, ambulocetus and tiktaalik, where the evolutionary thinking is represented, as with all their "transitional" fossils.

First ambulocetus. We are told that this small, horned and hooved animal turned into a great whale! Wow. There must be so much ev-i-dence for that. Please give me a shred of evidence that it ever produced a single descendant significantly different from itself in anyway. Or, is all such evidence primarily composed of....missing...."links"?

Pllease don't point me to this and that of a dozen or so other "whale transition" fossils and tell me ambulocetus turned into them. There's no ev-i-dence for that. They don't even look alike. Or if there is evidence, show what it is. Show any evidence that those other supposed transitions had a single descendant significantly different form themselves in any way or were related to one another. What observable data is there to show that ambulocetus isn't just what it looks like, a dead end, extinct, lifeform?

Oh, but you will cite "similar homology" no doubt, in this case because ambulocetus had some minor similarity in its inner ears to whales. Uh, sorry, that's the use of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy, one of the many logical fallacies evolution is built on, and its favorite one. Science cannot be illogical. That means you can't prop up a theory with logical fallacies and call it evidence.

Doilphns and sharks have similar homology, so do snakes and worms. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales have sonar - gee, that's even more of a similarity than seen in the inner ear structures of ambulocetus and whales. People and cockatoos dance to music. Countless other similarities can be found in life forms that even evolutionist don't try to claim are related. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.

Now onto Tiktaalik. At least one world famous evolutionary evangelist has proudly called Tik "As good as it gets for a transitional form." I agree with that statement! If you check out some evolution sites you will see Tik being called a "Fishapod" as we are being led to believe it turned into a tetrapod, a 4 legged creature. But....but....it looks practically identical to other lobe finned fish found today. And...and...some decades ago peer reviews were raving about Coelacanth, another lobe finned fish, and saying it was turning into a tetrapod and was evidence for evolution.

Then they found some live Coelacanths. You can see the pretty blue....fish period....swimming around on Youtube. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation/similar homology argument with him, too, of course.

Back to Tiktaalik. Check out a site with ictheyologists and you will hear it being described as a fish....a lobe finned....fish. Period. Where is the evidence it ever turned into something else? Nowhere of course.

And lets' examine how people can be fooled not only by words but by pictures in the world of evolution-think. Check out the actual picture of the fossil first. Its tail is conveniently missing. The tails of lobe finned fish are vertical, making any climb onto land difficult to say the least. If you find pictures of "fishapods" with horizontal tails on Google, those are just more artists' renditions. In a world covered with countless billions of fossils, mostly marine, there is no fossil support whatsoever for their "artistic license." In fact all those countless fossils show no such creatures whatsoever.

But at the Melbourne Musuem site an artist rendition of Tik has given him a conveniently horizontal tail, convenient for slipping onto land. They also show a full "replica" of Tik's body in "reconstruction." The replica has frontal fins about 3X bigger than the fossil's with pronounced musculature, - no way supported by the fossil's examination - for its miraculous climb to land. In addition, the replica shows an upward tilting snout, also not seen on the fossil, for its presumed beginning of breathing on land.

And remember that you have been told, per evolutionary theory, that Tik is "As good as it gets" for a "transitional form"! As good as it gets in evolution always means logical fallacies piled on presumptions with no actual data to support them, a mixture of visual and verbal deception, all stirred well with sophistry, that is then called "evidence"!

I invite anyone to Google Quotes That Show The Credulity of Evolutionists. There you will see famous scientists, including some famous evolutionists and Nobel Prize winners, flat out admitting there is no evidence for evolution! If you want to holler "Quote mine!", which is an implication that their words are misquoted or out of context, by all means show me the quote in context and how it is misrepresented. But when I ask that Q. the evo. fans fall silent.

Please don't fall silent or change the subject to something else - which evo. fans almost always try do when asked these, and other data based Qs aboutg evolution. Please answer the Qs above. You believe in transitional fossils. You are trying to get us to believe in them. Answer the Qs and show you can support that belief. Give me any evidence, any observable data that those, or any, "transitional fossils" ever had any descendants significantly different form themselves or were related to animals higher up on the "Tree of Life" which Darwin (who never showed the origin of anything and expressed doubt about his own - rehashed from earlier people - theory) came up with. But you won't, because you can't because evolution is pseudo science b.s.

 

[Ryukil]

Something I've noticed:

When science can be used to "prove" creationism, or get patriotic Americans to the Moon, it's good.
When science demonstrates the reality of evolution, it is written off as "Man's Wisdom".

 

[lasthero]

First ambulocetus. We are told that this small, horned and hooved animal turned into a great whale!

I'm pretty sure ambulocetus didn't have horns, nor was it hoffed. You're thinking about the wrong animal.

 

[RickG]

I invite anyone to Google Quotes That Show The Credulity of Evolutionists. There you will see famous scientists, including some famous evolutionists and Nobel Prize winners, flat out admitting there is no evidence for evolution!

Well seriously LoricaLady, opponents of evolution do have a history of presenting information and comments by scientists out of context, which I'm sure Loudmouth will provide examples of if you wish; but that is not what I wish to discuss with you.

What I want to ask you is: "How do you explain the fossil record distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution"?

If evolution were false that would mean that all life appeared together and would be distributed throughout the geologic column together. The fact is that the fossil record is not a mixed conglomerate of all animal and plant species together.

 

[LoricaLady]

Its basically throwing as much mud as possible against the wall and hoping something sticks. It doesn't matter to most creationists if the arguments they use contradict each other, as long as they get as many out as possible. The only argument that actually matters to them is, "my interpretation of the bible says so." Anything else is frankly a ball of mud used to score points to "win the debate."

Please see my post, just above, to the OP. Notice I never mentioned the Bible at all. Evolution stands or falls based on science and logic alone.

Now that you have come onto a website that is supposed to be supportive to Christians, to insult and throw mud at them, why don't you show how much more intelligent you are by answering the Qs I asked above? Don't evade them now like so many evo fans before you. Don't change the subject. (But I predict you will do exactly that as evo. devotees almost always do.) Try to restrain yourself from the red herring and strawman logical fallacies of more Bible Bashing. Show some manners. Show some knowledge. Kindly enlighiten us all and just answer those Qs. using observable data - not logical fallacies now - using actual scientific data.

 

[LoricaLady]

I'm pretty sure ambulocetus didn't have horns, nor was it hoffed. You're thinking about the wrong animal.

All you had to do was Google, as I just did, "ambulocetus hooves", to find that it had "fingers" with "hooves on the end." I believe the word "fingers" is also used to described the bones that lead into horses' hooves. Some sites simply mention that it had "hooves.' I am not going to do your work for you and research horns and fur. However, think about it. Animals with hooves generally have fur...and horns!

"You're thinking about the wrong animal." No, you're not bothering to research out the facts. Kindly do that in the future. The big point here is that there is no evidence the animal turned into a whale. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, just in general, but its even more obviously ridiculous when you say that some minor ear similarity demonstrates a relatively small animal with....hooooooves, etc......turned into a great whale.

 

[lasthero]

Animals with hooves generally have fur...and horns!

The hooves I'll give you, and since it was a mammal, yes, it had fur. But it didn't have horns.

I find it odd that you criticize me for not doing research, when a simple image search for the fossil will show you that it didn't have horns.

but its even more obviously ridiculous when you say that some minor ear similarity demonstrates a relatively small animal with....hooooooves, etc......turned into a great whale.

Do you really believe that's the only reason ambulocetus is considered to be a transition to whales?

 

[LoricaLady]

Well seriously LoricaLady, opponents of evolution do have a history of presenting information and comments by scientists out of context, which I'm sure Loudmouth will provide examples of if you wish; but that is not what I wish to discuss with you.

What I want to ask you is: "How do you explain the fossil record distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution"?

If evolution were false that would mean that all life appeared together and would be distributed throughout the geologic column together. The fact is that the fossil record is not a mixed conglomerate of all animal and plant species together.

There isn't any "Geologic Column." That is one of the biggest myths used to prop up evolution. The truth is the fossils are jumbled. For just one of countless examples, you can see seashells and so called Precambrian fossils on most any mountain top.

The Geologic Column is a 19th century construct invented by George Lyell, a lawyer with bad eyesight. He never saw one and no one else has ever seen one either. If you talk to a very well qualified geologist he or she will admit (and you can see this on Google, too) that there really is no Geologic Column, though they will generally still try to support it as a theoretically good idea!

Some places, like Talk Spin, er Talk Origins, will claim that a full Geologic Column has been seen in, I think, Oregon. But if you use a fine tooth to go through their articles you will see them saying, in effect, "Well, some of the strata are out of place." Out of place? In other words, there ain't any geologic column there at all, just the usual excuses and dodges.

Hitler said, "If you tell a lie over and over enough, people start to believe it." People have seen that poster of the fictitious Geologic Column over and over and just assume (as I once did) that it actually is based on scientific findings.
It ain't. How else have you been decieved? Rhetorical Q, however if you can't address, and answer, the Qs above, then you are seeing more about how.

 

[RickG]

The Geologic Column is a 19th century construct invented by George Lyell, a lawyer with bad eyesight. He never saw one and no one else has ever seen one either. If you talk to a very well qualified geologist he or she will admit (and you can see this on Google, too) that there really is no Geologic Column, though they will generally still try to support it as a theoretically good idea!

You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

 

[LoricaLady]

The hooves I'll give you, and since it was a mammal, yes, it had fur. But it didn't have horns.

I find it odd that you criticize me for not doing research, when a simple image search for the fossil will show you that it didn't have horns.



Do you really believe that's the only reason ambulocetus is considered to be a transition to whales?

Give me a link to show your image. I suspect it will simply be an artist's rendition, not based on an actual fossil.

If I misremembered about the horns - I did research up on ambulocetus for sure, in the past. If I am wrong, I am happy to be shown that so I can be right in the future.

The real issue here, though, is about whether or not a small animal with hooves and fur - which you now agree about - turned into a great whale. You seem to be implying that the inner ear feature is not the only "evidence." Great. Show me what you've got and cite your link. What other evidence do you have? What evidence do you have that it isn't just a dead end extinct life form? What evidence do you have that it ever had any progeny significantly different from itself or that it is related in any way to other so called transitional forms leading to whales?

Please spare me from "similar homology" and other such faulty thinking based on the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Science has to be logical. Science built on logical fallacies is pseudo science.

 

[lasthero]

Give me a link to show your image. I suspect it will simply be an artist's rendition, not based on an actual fossil

Do you see a horn?

The real issue here, though, is about whether or not a small animal with hooves and fur - which you now agree about - turned into a great whale.

Why do you keep mentioning the fur? Whales have fur, too.

 

[LoricaLady]

You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

This will be my last post to you. You have, sadly, taken the usual approach of evo. devotees, that is you have become nasty, insulting and falsely accusing. I only debate with those who are civil and objective.

Your statistics on this forum only say you have an interest in geology, not that you are a retired geologist. Who knows about what people say on the net, though, and really it doesn't matter.

Below are some quotes showing evolutionary scientists admitting problems re the Geologic Column. Again, there are so called Cambrian seashells on the tops of many mountains worldwide. Dinosaur bones can be seen protruding from mountain ranges in the far northwestern states, etc. etc. etc. Further one can see things like so called Cambrian trilobytes in abundance in hills of the state where I have lived in the past. You could pick them up from the yards. As I said, the fossil record is jumbled.

Evoltuionists have all sorts of fancy words, and all sorts of excuses with no data to verify their beliefs, to try to prop up a belief in a worldwide nice, neat geologic column. They call discrepancies things like "unconformities" and "anomalies" and so on.

Here are quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica and from some gleaned at creationmoments.com. Yeal, I know you don't want to sully your eyes with anything from creation sites. I bet if you heard Coelacanth was a "fishapod" that you believed it, though. Too bad if you stay that way, so full of...faith...in evolution. Too bad if you stay in the matrix. I pray you will come out of it.

THE SO CALLED GEOLOGIC COLUMN

The Encyclopedia Britanica says, "The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geological column. It is the result of integrating all the world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence."

Quotes found compliments of Creationmoments.com:

...As Boucott(27) is forced to admit, "One of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfections, this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of "missing links" once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological (fossil) evidence for morphological inter-grades between one suprafamial taxon and another." (That is, between orders, classes and phyla, etc.)."

...Francis Hitching of the Royal Institute of Archaeology(32) admitted in 1982: "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." [Here you are a witness to a major characteristic of evolution-think, the actual evidence is being ignored and a theory that supports evolution replaces the true data and is treated as if it is a fact. There is no evidence that the "infinity of missing links" are "missing!" The scientific evidence is that the fossils they are always searching for, that they fervently believe ought to be found...aren't... there. Period. The scientific evidence is that they never were there. But the faith-full evolution follower continues to go on believing in invisible fossils and talks about them as if they are scientific fact.]

... Hitching(34) when he admits in discussing certain problems in the evolutionary theory: "The efforts to teach the facts of evolution within the straitjacket of a single theory have led repeatedly to fudging and fixing the evidence. The biggest casualty, all too often, has been the truth." Hitching (still an evolutionist) goes on in Chapter 8 of his work to give some examples of such practices....
... as Olson(26) admits, "We determine the nature of transformations by tracing them, but how they are traced depends upon the particular lines of descent that we envisage, and these are often speculative."

...Valentine,(29) who wrote, "The assignment of groups of organisms to taxonomic categories involves a large element of subjectivity."

...In John Woodmorappe's work(33) he tells us that 42% of earth's land surface has only three or less geologic periods represented at all. We also find that a significant percentage of rocks from every geologic period do not overlie the rocks of the next "oldest" geologic period - e.g., only 51.6% of Cretaceous rocks overlie those of the Jurassic. Furthermore, some part of every geologic period rests directly upon Precambrian [the purported lowest level in the depictions of a Geologic column] deposits."

...Hitching(39) again has something to say about supposed intermediates: "Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature, artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, and then rearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the arrangement."


When you hear places like Talk Spin, er Talk Origins telling you, in effect, "Yes there is...almost...an entire Geologic Column in one place on the earth, North Dakota!" i.e. they haven't found even one on this vast planet, but they still want you to believe that Geologic Columns are evidence for evolution, think of the quotes above. Anyone can claim anything. Anyone can spin anything. In this world, if you want the real truth, like a real geologist, you gotta dig for it. And you have to look at opposing views and not shut your mind to evidence that belies your preconceived notions.

 

[LoricaLady]

Do you see a horn?



Why do you keep mentioning the fur? Whales have fur, too.

I have never heard anyone referring to whales as having fur. They have a few hairs, I believe generally only when they are juveniles. You are just trying to change the subject.

Why do you keep avoiding my Qs and changing the topic to trivia, like "fur" which is not even considered to be a covering for cetaceans per standard English useage? (My training is as a speech/language pathologist in the school system and no way would I, or teachers, tell the students that whales have fur. Get real.) Answer the Qs about how we know ambulocetus led to great whales, with actual data and w/o using logical fallacies - but you won't. You will keep evading and changing the subject because you can't answer them. That ought to bother you.

If you just keep tossing out more red herrings, sorry I don't have the time for that and will stop replying while you get the last word/logical fallacy.

 

[Split Rock]

Does your use of the word 'creationists' only apply to those who are Young Earth Creationists?

Not necessarily. Most creationists here and in the USA are YECs, however. I'm not claiming that all creationists care nothing for the physical evidence, just that the majority do not. They are convinced by their interpretation of scripture, not phsyical evidence.

Some books are pretty standard grammar, though it can get pretty difficult at times -- when symbolic, metaphorical and various styles of argument have been employed (whether consciously or not)
Generally though private study is encouraged, it's mean to be read to the whole congregation.
Some congregations have set beliefs which determine interpretation and this has led to schisms. i.e. when Martin Luther was focused on justification, and heretical penance.
In England there used to (probably still goes on to some degree now) be an ongoing battle between Protestants and Catholics, over particular doctrines.
In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity which isn't in the Bible, though one finds allusions to it even in Genesis 1 -- was argued about so intensely that it caused a major split.
Though these splits go on, there is still much that unifies Christians - in particular our devotion to Jesus.

All well and good, but I'm not sure what any this has to do with what I posted.