Why keep denying "transitional fossil forms" when they are so numerous?

[JoyfulExegesis]

When I was young, the fossil record was not nearly as abundant and instructive as it is today. And without the Internet, it was difficult for the average person to learn about it from the primary sources. But today one doesn't have to visit a museum to see countless examples. Many of the online databases categorize the transitional forms between the various taxonomic units. (One of my personal favorites is the common descent tree for elephant-like creatures. The transitions have been filled-in with such detail that it is hard to imagine how any honest person could pretend there are terribly problematic gaps.)

So the popular creationist mantra "There are ZERO transitional fossil forms!" has become an embarrassing lie. So is it time to retire it and hope that the young earth creationist followers don't notice? Doesn't the propagation of the myth in creationists books and videos serve only to perpetuate the "Lying for Jesus" stereotype?

And doesn't outright dishonesty place unnecessary stumbling blocks before the Gospel message?

Here's some informative lists of transitional fossils. Why lie and complain of too many gaps?

=============================

As a newcomer, CF won't let me post links. So I must shroud them:

List_of_transitional_fossils
article in Wikipedia

Talkorigins.org
See the faqs by searching on "Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A"

darwiniana.org website: hominid.htm page
"Evolution -- Transitional Hominids"

 

[Tomk80]

I still think it is mostly ignorance. Although when these fossils are pointed out, this is generally just ignored. So then ignorance turns into dishonesty, probably for the sake of maintaining their worldview.

 

[The Engineer]

Most creationists don't even understand the notion of transitional forms. For them, transitional forms are chimeras, and I'm not even talking about genetical chimeras here. Creationists think that a transitional form is an animal with traits of another animal, i.e. crocodiles with bird beaks. Or at least that's how I understood it.

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm not denying their existence at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I was young, the fossil record was not nearly as abundant and instructive as it is today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't my dad now considered a transitional fossil between me and my grandfather?

If so, then evolutionists are simply daisy-chaining like [evolution term] species [/evolution term] together.

On the macro scale, can evolutionists daisy-chain one genus to another?

And I don't just mean on paper, either; I mean put two fossils side-by-side that have no other genus between them?

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't my dad now considered a transitional fossil between me and my grandfather?

If so, then evolutionists are simply daisy-chaining like [evolution term] species [/evolution term] together.

On the macro scale, can evolutionists daisy-chain one genus to another?

And I don't just mean on paper, either; I mean put two fossils side-by-side that have no other genus between them?

As far as species and fossils are concerned, it is the mixture of characteristics that makes them transitional. A platypus has a mixture of reptillian and mammalian features. A platypus is transitional, even if it is not a direct ancestor of other living mammal species. Transitional and ancestral are two different things.

As for recent transitions in our own evolution, they inlcude several Australopithecine and Homo species, each of which has a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as species and fossils are concerned, it is the mixture of characteristics that makes them transitional. A platypus has a mixture of reptillian and mammalian features. A platypus is transitional, even if it is not a direct ancestor of other living mammal species. Transitional and ancestral are two different things.

As for recent transitions in our own evolution, they inlcude several Australopithecine and Homo species, each of which has a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

I can't tell from all that technobabble if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't my dad now considered a transitional fossil between me and my grandfather?

Consider yourself corrected. You are wrong.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I can't tell from all that technobabble if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

1) He wasn't trying to agree or disagree with you. He was trying to explain transitional forms to you. (If he had tried to start from your straw man version, he'd have to correct all of your errors first. Why not instead start with a clean slate?)

2) What you call "technobabble" is simply your excuse for failing to learn.

3) Your byline says "Science can take a hike." So that means that you mock any explanation even before you hear it. So why should he tailor his explanation to you when you are going to reject it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't tell from all that technobabble if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Yes, your dad is transitional between you and your grandfather. However, a transitional does not need to be in the direct line of descent. In fact, ancestry has nothing to do with determining if a fossil is transitional or not. If we found a bird to mammal transitional fossil this would actually FALSIFY common ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, ancestry has nothing to do with determining if a fossil is transitional or not.

Of course not.

If it was, then evolution would be too hard to demonstrate.

After all, if you can't daisy-chain, do the next best thing -- connect the dots.

Right?

I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:

You can't show that any of those missing links had offspring.

 

[StormanNorman]

Of course not.

If it was, then evolution would be too hard to demonstrate.

After all, if you can't daisy-chain, do the next best thing -- connect the dots.

Right?

I would describe it more as interpolation.

I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:

You can't show that any of those missing links had offspring.

So, in each case, we found the last survivor for that particular species, e.g., Lucy was the last of her kind? Possible, but I highly doubt it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would describe it more as interpolation.

Okay, thanks for the info. I learned something new!

So, in each case, we found the last survivor for that particular species, e.g., Lucy was the last of her kind?

In my opinion, Lucy, along with all these other Homo [whatevers], was a human being, struck down by a bone-altering disease, a la Deuteronomy 28.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Of course not.

If it was, then evolution would be too hard to demonstrate.

After all, if you can't daisy-chain, do the next best thing -- connect the dots.

Right?

I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:

You can't show that any of those missing links had offspring.

Good point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good point.

Some say I'm full of it, but they won't say what.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Some say I'm full of it, but they won't say what.

I was referring to the fact that you referred to inmate Hovind as "Mr.", not "Dr."

The rest of your post I really didn't read.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was referring to the fact that you referred to inmate Hovind as "Mr.", not "Dr."

Oh.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Oh.

Sorry, but when I read your old and tired Pluto, Thalidomide, New Jersey, Neptune, Challenger, embedded age, "I'm not a YEC", I believe in 99% of science too, canards, I feel a little stupider. So I only scan your missives, if at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but when I read your old and tired Pluto, Thalidomide, New Jersey, Neptune, Challenger, embedded age, "I'm not a YEC", I believe in 99% of science too, canards, I feel a little stupider. So I only scan your missives, if at all.

I understand.

(And it's 95% ... not 99. )

 

[JustMeSee]

I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:

You can't show that any of those missing links had offspring.

If something is missing, and never found, how can one show that an unfounded fossil had offspring?

I don't know why you would love such an asinine point.

(then again, I have an idea)