This is typical of the gross oversimplification and lack of reasonable thinking displayed by evolutionists.
The few supposedly transitional forms do not demonstrate even a small fraction of a percent of the number of inrermediate forms required for man to have descended from ape-like creatures.
Only one specimen of an A. afarensis is needed to validate that the species existed. Look at every species of australopithecine and hominine we have, and can we really say that any intermediate form in the human lineage is missing? In several cases, it is not that any form is missing; it is a question of which of two or more forms is the direct ancestor and which the collateral ancestor.
The common answer for this problem is that the fossil record is very incomplete. But that is a pure assumption. This unfounded assumption is clearly demonstrated to be incorrect by the fact that most of the genera known today in Europe and North America have been found fossilized.
It is certainly true that some lineages are better known than others. We have excellent fossils of many equine ancestors, but very few of bat ancestors. However, unless one is going to suppose an entirely different kind of history for bats than for horses, it makes more sense to suppose that bat ancestors did not leave as many fossils as horse ancestors did.
Again, similarities indeed seem to indicate some kind of relationship. (Although they do not conclusively prove one.)
This is typical of the backwards about reasoning of creationists. You know from your own experience that relationship is shown in similarities. That's why relatives coo over new infants and young children, exclaiming "He has his father's ears/his mother's eyes." Or "He looks so much like his Uncle Jim; look at that chin."
In common life we expect close relationship to be indicated by similarity of feature and even of personality. Just so in evolution, we expect close relationship to be indicated by similarity of feature. Yet when this straightforward principle is applied, we are told "similarity does not indicate relationship." Tell that to the courts who accept DNA similarity to establish paternity.
Exactly how do you expect those who inherit similar DNA not to show physical similarity? Why then is physical similarity not to be taken as evidence of shared DNA? Shared DNA implies a common heritage from a common ancestor. Why should any other scientific explanation be sought?
But what kind of a relationship do they indicate? They could indeed indicate a hereditary relationship, in the absence of other evidence.
A hereditary relationship need not be one of direct ancestry. My great-uncle is an ancestor of mine, with whom I am likely to share more common DNA than with an Italian (there being no record of Italian relatives in our family). True, his brother (my grandfather) is even more closely related, but we don't need to establish a direct ancestry to establish a hereditary relationship. With fossils we usually cannot establish the exact degree of relationship; that is why scientific reports never say "this fossil is an ancestor of..." but instead something along the line of "this is the type of fossil that is close to the common ancestor of..." The fact is that even if we found the common ancestor of two groups, we could not establish, on fossil evidence alone, that it is the common ancestor, so it would still be written up as "close to the common ancestor".
But they can just as reasonably be argued to indicate creation by the same mind.
I see this claim all the time. But I have never seen the reasoning spelled out. Nor have I ever seen it related successfully to the actual distribution of biological characteristics in either living or fossil species. Even granting that an artist might have consistent habits, it doesn't make her works fit into a nested hierarchy based on a multitude of shared derived features.
No one argues that all Chevrolets must be descended from a common ancestor. But their obvious similaraties indeed demonstrate that they came from the same engineering department.
1. Cars are not biological (yet). They don't self-reproduce.
2. The manufacturers of Chevrolets do borrow innovations from other manufacturers. I don't know which auto company first developed anti-locking braking systems, but they were soon featured on automobiles of all companies. Ditto child-proof locks, air bags, etc. In biology, each such innovation would only be passed to the descendants of the species in which it first occurred. It wouldn't jump across brand-name lines to appear in different lineages. So if we were dealing with a common "mind" rather than common "ancestry" in biology, we would expect this sort of crossing of lines. We don't see it, even when it would make sense. (Why, for example, do bats not have the same more efficient respiration system as birds?)
3. Even within the same company, automobiles cannot be classified into a single nested hierarchy. A classification based on characteristics of brakes would not likely match a classification based on characteristics of hood ornaments. In biology, we do get a single nested hierarchy whether we use anatomical features, DNA analysis, biogeography or endogenous retroviral features. IOW highly different criteria yield the same relational features. This is something one must get from relationships of inheritance, but is not explicable on any other basis.
That statement came from my evolutionist Ph.D. professors and advanced biology students in the University of Kentucky in the late 1960's.
We often assume what people mean when they use certain terms. Did they mean "creation" in general--i.e. a blanket denial that the universe is a creation or that life is a creation, or did they mean "special creation" --i.e. a horse is not a specially created form, but one with an evolutionary ancestry.
Of course, some would mean both. But many who would deny the special creation of particular biological forms would not be anti-creation in a larger sense. It is an important distinction to make. Just because I don't believe in the special creation of a horse or a frog or of humanity doesn't mean I don't believe in creation.
A second factor is whether or not they meant it scientifically. To many people it appears irrational to believe in a creator. But when asked, they would agree that they cannot produce a proof that eliminates creation. They would agree that although they personally find it irrational to believe in creation (in the larger sense stated above) that belief in creation is not inconsistent with science and that science does not decree atheism or even agnosticism.
I believe in a Creator God. I do not see how any real Christian could possibly reject this concept.
Neither do I. This belief is fundamental to Christianity. Yet many Christians do not find they need to reject evolution on this account. It is a false dichotomy to say one must choose between evolution and creation.
It is also false to conclude that those who accept evolution are not really Christian believers.