Shernren...
A very interesting article, I just wish that I could get access to the original articles referenced in it. My first reaction is caution...remember living mosaic organisms, such as the platypus...and the thought that if platypus was only found fossilized evolutionists would be hailing it as a an inigma much as they do the supposed whale evolution fairy-tale. They would undoubtedly be calling it a link demonstrating that some mammals developed from birds or the other way around.
It is my contention that there are many mosaic organisms found within the fossil record, but being mosaic does NOT make them intermediate or transitory between major classes of organisms. Again back to the genetic discussion, the fact that all organisms clasified as deer (moose, elk, deer, etc...) can give way to creatures within the gene pool of that "kind" BUT cannot give way to any "kind" of organisms of "canine" (dogs, wolves, fox, etc...) demonstrates that there is a barrier there between major forms of organisms that cannot be crossed. Ernst Mayr recognizes this barrier and talks about it in many of his articles and books.
The mechanism of choice right now is mutations and natural selection...but it has been demonstrated for over 10,000 years that mutations (copying errors made during cell division...no other genetic change is truly a mutation, they are genetic changes, but they are NOT mutations) do not produce what evolutionists say they do...assume that they do and tell you that it is a fact instead of an assumption.
Another caution...too many times evolutionary paleontologists like to make a name for themselves by claiming to have found something no one else before them has. For example, a few years back one claimed to find a new kind of T-Rex in China, one that sported horns over its eyes. Now, this discovery is unique, only one, no others hae ever been found since that time, so I have to ask the question, did this T-Rex really have horns, or is the fossil somehow been "damaged" in some way by the processes of time to make it appear that it had horns?
Scientists say that Allosauras and T-Rex are two different species...but are they really? How can we tell? We can't, therefore they are doing science an injustice when they claim something that they cannot prove. The only way to prove it would be if we had some intact DNA and had the capability to perform "Jurassic Park" type experiments to see if they were genetically compatible. By that I mean egg and sperm in vitro experiments, if they can be fertilized and experience growth, then they belong to the same "kind". I say this because upon appearances, the skeletal and fossilized remains of both are almost identicle with few exceptions (if we found skeletal fossilized remains of a Chiuaua and German Shepherd, would evolutionists claim them as two different species or kinds?)
In my definition (I believe it is the definition used in creationist discussions), the word "kind" means the original pair of organisms made by God, which means that there were not moose, elk, deer, etc in that kind, but having been created with great genetic flexibility in variational genes, we now have moose, elk, etc. Elephants are one kind, dogs are another, cats another, deer still another, various kinds of fish, ampbibians, etc. The gene pools of these kinds give way to great variation which gives us the miriad of varations of organisms that we have today...but that same gene pool does not allow for jumps...elephants cannot give way to something that looks like a cat, fish cannot give way to amphibians because the genes that build an amphibian are not present in the genome of fish...nor can they be constructed to do so. Mutations do not act in that capacity.
A number of questions that I would put to the author of this article:
These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb.
And that says what? In a straight forward interpretation (one that does not assume evolution to be true) all it shows is a repeated pattern, and that is found in numerous organisms. It proves nothing.
This fish also had lungs and nostrils
Did it really? Tell me how one can see nostrils and lungs in a solid rock fossil...was the tiny "hole" that may look like a nose hole really a nose hole, or was it only a hole......from what I have seen, we have very little "perfect" fossils. Bones have pores......?
368-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)
Many fossils are found in contorted and twisted fashion...as if in dire straights (they did not just lay down and die, some kind of catastrophic force contorted their bodies)...my point being, if they found no feet or hands, which means that this fossil was definitely torn apart some way, how do they know for a FACT that the limb bones that were only "found with it" (obviously not attached to the fossil or it would not have been worded thusly) belong to the other parts they are grouping together as one? They don't, they are assuming again....
368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod.
Only one partial sample and already we are classifying it? Come now, another example of rediculousness if ever I saw one. Too often evolutionists are ready to clasify anything, any part of anything, when in reality there is not enough information to classify anything at all. There are more findings that should remain as "i don't know" classification that what evolutionists give credit for.
365-363 MYR -Densignathus rowei--known only from the jaw but it is transitional between fish and amphibians.
Again, another example of jumping to conclusions and that without ample evidence. What is the differences between the lower jaw (of nothing that has ever been discovered before) and the lower jaw of an amphibian? How can you HONESTLY even think that you can classify such an artifact?
363 MYR-Ichthyostega-- Is the first animal with feet but the feet are different than most tetrapod feet. They are much like Acanthostega but has 7 digits on his hindlimb. His legs were only good for being in water. They could not support his weight. (Coates and Clack, 1990, p. 67) These are half evolved legs since they have more digits than the normal tetrapod but fewer bony rays than the fish and they are unable to support the weight.
More assumptions, aren't they, being spoken of as fact when there is no possible way they could know for a fact anything of their statements...how do they know that the legs could not have supported the animal's weight? Did the muscles fossilize...if they did, could they cut apart the outer layers of fossilized flesh and examine fossilized muscles? Think for yourself, Shernren, think....can you look at fossilized remains of a camel and be able to tell whether or not its leg muscles could support its body weight? I think not, and neither can they. Conjecture built upon conjecture built upon assumption, nothing here do I see written that could possibly be known for a FACT other than what is obviuos in straight forward interpretations.
And additional digits, do they really boast a big difference? No, they do not. I have seen people brought into the local county jail that when told to remove their shoes for inspection, had six toes on both feet...does that tell me that his ancesotr's could have possibly been from Goliath's line, who also had such additional digits? No, it does not, all it proves is a mutational affect upon his developmental pathways after conception, that is all it proves. Is that mutation able to be copied to his progeny? It has demonstrated to be not the case.
Thus, once again, this creature shows intermediate or transitional traits. Those who erroneously claim transitional forms don't exist, haven't looked at the data.
Once again, I would caution anyone who would read this kind of article to research back to the original articles that this one is derived from, if they can gain access to them. Usually, more is assumed from the first article than the first article assumes, and so on down the line. I would also say that if one had the time and resources, that they search out these fossils and examine them for themselves...we place way to much trust in the hands of people who,
IF biased in their work, input their own interpretations into articles that the fossil does not give credence to.
I would also close in saying that anyone who does believe that there are strict transitional and intermediate fossils needs to research genetics...if one does not understand that basic genetics demonstrates the impossibility of such scribblings, one can look at any fossil and say that it has evolutionary underpinnigns. If genetics dictates that all such changes are impossible, then all fossils claimed to be transitory and intermediate are based upon false interpretations, period.
Caution, my brother, erroneous interpretations, like hanging around the wrong crowd, can corrupt and have a disasterous affect upon your salvation.
Blessings!
