Advertisement
Here is a great example of one of those pesky transitional forms that creationists like to say don't exist.
uk.reuters.com/article/sc...0CQ20090204
Funny how they keep cropping up.
uk.reuters.com/article/sc...0CQ20090204
Funny how they keep cropping up.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: About Those Transitional Forms Creationists Like To Deny
Thu, February 5, 2009 - 3:04 PMHere we have "skeptic Joe" who probes all statements and beliefs for logical flaws, but fails to do so for his own pet fairy tales.
Hey Great Joe, you found the holy grail, a supposed missing link. The fact that this is "news" simply underscores the fact that creationists claims that transitional forms are extremely rare and highly dubious are to be taken seriously.
‘Thewissen et al.’s discovery of these terrestrial cetaceans is one of the most important events in the past century of vertebrate palaeontology. Only a very few fossils, such as these, reveal a link between two groups of vertebrates that are hugely different in terms of evolution … . But the new fossils superbly document the link between modern whales and their land-based forebears, and should take their place among other famous “intermediates”, such as the most primitive bird, Archaeopteryx, and the early hominid Australopithecus (emphasis added).’ Muizon, C.de., Walking with whales, Nature 259:260, 2001
There you have it, 3 "famous" transitions. Archeopteryx for example is well known NOT to be any intermediary since true birds existed prior to it!
by the way, you have to love those "artist's conception of male Maiacetus inuus as it would have appeared in life". At least we cannot fault the evolution believer for lack of imagination.
"flipper-like legs" Translation, no flippers
"He said the Maiacetus fossils APPEAR to represent an intermediate whale form" (empasis added) Translation: we have no idea whether or not this represents a true transition (it doesn't), but by including this statement late in the article, we hope that guys like "skeptic joe" will push this around the internet to strengthen the faith of evolution believers everywhere.
www.answersingenesis.org/creat...le.asp -
-
Re: About Those Transitional Forms Creationists Like To Deny
Fri, February 6, 2009 - 8:40 AM>"He said the Maiacetus fossils APPEAR to represent an intermediate whale form" (empasis added) Translation: we have no idea whether or not this represents a true transition (it doesn't),<
So then what is it?
Was it one of those animals that was too big to fit in Noah's Ark?
Or was it left by pixies to confuse us? -
-
Re: About Those Transitional Forms Creationists Like To Deny
Fri, February 6, 2009 - 9:24 AMIt is an animal that once existed on the earth, but apparently doesn't any longer. That is all we know for sure Joe, the rest is conjecture. I would think a bright guy like you would understand such a simple concept. There are lots of organisms which have gone extinct.
No animals were too big to fit on the ark. But the ark didn't guarantee eternal survival.
"Or was it left by pixies to confuse us?"
why would an alternative rock band be trying to confuse us?
-
-