About Those Transitional Forms Creationists Like To Deny

topic posted Thu, February 5, 2009 - 7:48 AM by  Joe
Share/Save/Bookmark
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.
posted by:
Joe
offline Joe
Massachusetts
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Dan
    Dan
    offline 8
    Here 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
    • >"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?
      • Dan
        Dan
        offline 8
        It 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?

Recent topics in "Evolution/Creation Debate"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Science’s Breakthrough of the Year: Uncovering “Ardi” Joe 3 Yesterday, 11:44 AM
RDF TV - Baloney Detection Kit - Michael Shermer Joe 12 December 18, 2009
Moderator? Joe 6 December 18, 2009
Is Evolution counter Intuitive? Dan 4 December 18, 2009