Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Revelation777]

First, rev is shown the actual science:

---

Tiktaalik? I GOT THIS YOU GUYS!! WATCH OUT WE ARE GOING TO TRY SCIENCE!!


"Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish."

The reason scientist don't say those fish are proof of evolution is because they weren't around before tetrapods. Also taxonomy says that tetrapod decend from lobe-fined fish,not ray-fined fish,which is what those walking fish are. Also walking isn't the the only trait of tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has a neck,ribs that are located on the sides of the vertabre instead of on the top and bottom of it , and ear notches which only appear on tetrapods. Is there a living fish with those tetrapod traits? Don't think so.1

"Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapods—even though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water."

Except that you will name them later, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

"These fish have fleshy pectoral fins containing bony elements (considered similar to tetrapod legs). These similarities have prompted evolutionists to confidently declare that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods."

Or you can look at the fossils you name that you use in a attempt to dismiss the evidence and think your audience is stupid to realize this.

"According to evolutionists, the crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered."

Ya because you know gravity never thought something and then it was shown wrong. Gravity has never been wrong ever. Accept those few times it was. Because you know science tends to change its mind when it is wrong,right? You know we are aloud to change unlike you because we know science isn't perfect but you claim that the bible is and you have to change one thing because its wrong then the bible is false,right?


"This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"

Facepalm Strawman! They are lobe-fined fishes but not the ancestors of tetrapods but they shared a common ancestor. They shared a common ancestor thats it.2

"At the very least, evolutionists expected to observe some hint of walking behavior in the coelacanth, but nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Coelacanths have been observed swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea."

Maybe because they split off with tetrapods. Celocanths are actinistia, while tetrapods are rhipidistia.

"Since living lobe-fin fish have not met expectations, evolutionists have turned to other fossilized lobe-fins for the ancestors of tetrapods. Until recently, the most popular crossopterygian candidates for ancestors of tetrapods were Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. Both of these fish, like the Coelacanth, have fleshy pectoral fins with bones. But according to Daeschler, Shubin, and Jenkins (Nature 440(7085): 757–763, April 2006)—the discoverers of Tiktaalik—these fish possess relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods and that until now, “our understanding of major transformations at the fish–tetrapod transition has remained limited.”

Ya the existed as a transition between lobe-fined fishes and animals like tiktaalik. Why do you creationist use transitional fossils that transition into other transitional fossils and think it can disprove evolution? Facepalm Is there a fallacy for this?

"In the April 2006 issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae in sedimentary layers in arctic Canada. They confidently declared that Tiktaalik “represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.”
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gills—all consistent with an entirely aquatic life style."

Ya it is a fish, so are tetrapods because you can't leave your evolutionary ancestry. Don't believe me, look at a taxonomic tree and try it. Also what about its neck,riv position, and ear notches.

"In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle."

Isn't brachiasarus's forelimbs more robust then its hind limbs? And is it not a tetrapod? Yes to both.3

"It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless."

Good job mentioning those tow fossils, should have known. Both inched on land to move, and both had the gills of fish, in fact acanthostega has a operculum.

"Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word."



Except this, good job Answers in Genesis, you have proven you can't play science right.

"Finally, what about the popular claim that Tiktaalik is the “missing link” between fish and tetrapods?
In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”
Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools. Even more sadly, these unfounded notions have been used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture."

Yes it is, and you have to lie just to ignore the tetrapod traits tiktaalik has(it has more tetrapod traits the fish traits anyway.) Looks like creationist can't find their inner fish.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...lking-fish

1. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html
2. http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
3. http://www.livescience.com/25024-brachiosaurus.html

also

Well it looks like I'm going to get on creationist about Tiktaalik. Looks like they can't find there inner fish. The infamous (no) Answers in Genesis has a response to this. They were upset to see scientific minds laugh at them. So they attacked a newspaper article on it instead of a scientific paper. Wonder why? There are a few things the two authors said that made me laugh so i'll address them before I get to tiktaalik.

"The discovery of the fossil “Tiktaalik” has been one of the most-widely picked up pro-evolution media stories since the (in)famous 1996 claim eventually shown to be false that life had been found in a meteorite from Mars."

First they talk about life on mars being debunked. First off life on mars is still a mystery to scientist. Knowing creationist and how they put there faults on us so they can look even, they think when science talks about something new they are researching, they think they're saying it is proof for evolution. Well sorry to break it to you but no scientist has said that life on mars is proof of evolution. At best it would more support abiogenesis. Also there is still a debate on it. I for one have not accepted that life is on mars until there is a scientific consensus that says that it did. Even at the time of it's discovery they were still debating on weather its true or not.(1)

"Some paleontologists are even claiming that Tiktaalik has the potential to become another Archaeopteryx for any evolutionist wanting to cite an ironclad example of a transitional form."

I now have another thing I can debunk from your website, thanks answers in genesis your making this to easy.Thumbsup

"The reports say that the skeletons (supposedly 375 million years old and up to nine feet long) have fish characteristics such as fins and a gill, but also characteristics that, according to the Times, “anticipate the emergence of land animals—and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs … .”
This part is very funny. I love that in this part they mention two of tiktaalik's fish traits but then never name its tetrapod traits that show how its connected to amphibians,reptiles, and birds(get it). This is so that their cover isn't blown and they won't get caught lying for Jesus by there followers.

"No creationist to our knowledge has yet done a careful analysis on this fossil. Until one of our scientists or an adjunct AiG researcher has conducted a careful study, we will not issue a conclusive statement."

This has to be the funniest thing they have said on this article. Creationist don't want to look at the fossil for research. They want to look at it so they can go "I've seen the fossil there are no tetrapod traits about it." You guys don't care about looking at it you just want to make your lie look more credible. Nice try. Now on to tiktaalik.


"There is the coelacanth fish, found in the same geological system (Devonian it is called) as this Tiktaalik discovery, that also has lobe fins. These lobe fins were once thought to enable the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor (in fact it was, like “Tiklaalik,” once considered by evolutionists to be a type of transitional form). Later, it was determined that the coelacanth fins were used for better maneuvering through the water, and not for walking. The new creature uncovered in the Arctic might be something similar."

What's funny is that you guys don't give a source for this. Wonder why?Consider The regular coelacanth was never said to have done what tiktaalik has done. It has been said it was thought to be able to walk. But science doing what it does corrected that mistake. Also coelacanth is not like a lungfish and a tetrapod(2), which fairs much better. Also coelacanths were around before tiktaalik evolved.(3) Also never once did a hear a scientist say ever that coelacanths were a part of the collection of tetrapod transitional fossils. If you under stood science you would know that these lobed-fined fishes had a common ancestor. There was however another fish that had to deal with tetrapods. It may not have been with coelacanths or with tiktaalik but it comes in between. It was asteolepis(4), another transitional fossil connecting lobe-fined fishes with early tetrapods like tiktaalik.

"Also, there are other creatures (e.g., the Panderichthys) that are thought to be fish and yet appear to be similar in lobe and fin structure to Tiktaalik. In addition, the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are embedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

There needs to be a word for the creationist act of using transitional fossil in an attempt to ignore other transitional fossils. Panderichthys existed before tiktaalik(4). Panderichthys shows a link between lobe-fined fishes and early tetrapods as well(5). Though it is correct that tiktaalik didn't walk like later tetrapods, however it did have fins that were much different then it's early ancestors(6). But I'm going to pour more salt on these creationist wounds and list some more of tiktaalik's tetrapod traits. It had a neck,ribs, a flat head, and ear notches. So tiktaalik did have fins but they were different from panderichthys and coelacanths. Quit lying for jesus.

"As we often state on this website, keep in mind that evolutionists and creationists have the same facts (e.g., fossils), but interpret the facts uncovered today differently in regard to the past. Because evolutionists want to discover transitional forms, when they find a very old fish with leg-bone-like bones in its fins, they want to interpret this as evidence that it is some sort of transitional creature. However, other fish seem to have the same sort of structure as stated above, and these bones are not constructed as one would expect for weight-bearing legs. It may be just another example of the wonderful design of our Creator God."
You guys made me laughLaughat,cryWeeping,and laugh again. We don't look at the same evidence. When science saw tiktaalik we truly examined it with a skeptical objective mind. That's also why you only looked at tiktaalik's fish traits. If you really looking at the same evidence then you would notice the tetrapod traits. Also if your god can make mismatch animals then why didn't he create catbug or the warners, so that when we see tiktaalik we can tell that it was just what god wanted to create? Why did your god make it so we would think evolution happens in the first place? Well there goes the god can't lie business.

"All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives today—the coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creatures—except these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and toes (and as has been stated, they are NOT connected to the axial skeleton)."

Great which fish. You left no source its like you just expect someone to read this and not check your sources. Also there are fossils that are fish and tetrapods. Talk origins gives some examples(7). You guys can't mention these though other wise your fans would learn that you're lying. I already explained coelacanths so i won't repeat my self on it. This is why you made me an atheist AIG and you earned my you made me an athiest awardSmartass.

"We will, however, continue to use words like “might” and “appear” until AiG can gain better access to the researchers’ findings and also study fossil fish that are similar to Tiktaalik. It is vital that we gather as much data as we can. At some time, we might discover (as was the case when closer examination revealed the really was no evidence of life on that Mars meteorite) that this fossil discovery has an alternative/better interpretation of the evidence."

To translate the first part in english, they're basically saying until we see the fossil in real life then walk away so we can tell you it has no tetrapod traits. I went over the mars thing as well so i won't repeat myself. There is already the best interpretation. It has been examined before. It has passed peer-review. What you are trying to say is to find a better excuse then the ones you already have.

"For the moment, we can confidently state that evolutionists have no examples of mutations or evolutionary processes that can lead to an increase in genetic information in a creature that would, for example, develop the appendage of a land animal from the fin of a fish (as would be required by molecules-to-man evolution). Evolution is stopped in its tracks at this point."

Really? I wish you creationist would stop making this empty and false claim. What about bacteria that became multi-celled(8), or the HeLa cells(9). This abstract shows what a beneficial mutation is.(10) Tiktaalik is a good fossil, I just explained why.

"This website has consistently demonstrated that fossil creatures are essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information, the opposite of what evolution requires). This is predicted in the creation model (animals reproducing “after their kind”; Genesis 1:24–25). Also, creationists have shown that the evidence found in the fossil record is highly consistent with catastrophism (i.e., a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah in the book of Genesis)."

Your website has consistently lied. I hate liars. You lie so you can make money off of peoples delusions. Fossils will stay the same because they're dead. However when they were alive tetrapods could reproduce and pass on traits. Also evolution is only gaining. In evolution losing parts is some times the benefit. Evolution is a lot more then what you make it liars.(11) I already got you on your whole kind lie before. This is my prediction, the creation model is a lie used to trick and enslave the masses into giving you apologist money. Your religion will one day die at the hands of reality. And that day is coming,that's why your master Ken Ham is complaining about teens being atheist, because each generation coming is getting to smart for your BS. I don't care if it happens before I die or after.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ssing-link

1. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...-78138144/

2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...12027.html

3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

4. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fishfossils/...olepis.htm

5. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...07339.html

6. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

7. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

8. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-...okaryotes/

9. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ce...a-cell.htm

10. http://www.genetics.org/content/176/3/1759

11. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_02

And don't try the foot prints because the paper even says that the foot prints are primitive.

" Has a distinct manus(hand) and pes(foot) prints of somewhat different size arranged in diagonal stride sequence. The animal is moving in a straight line and is not leaving a body drag. The prints are circular without digit impressions or displacement rims. A single,slightly larger print on the same slab shows a strong posterior displacement rim with digit marks."
You only read the abstract did you? You also said i was stupid as well, but i read the paper and you read the abstract. If you did you would know that was said. Don't call me stupid if you are going to lie and expect us to not research into this, why are not creationist we look into claims that people make.

Look up the pdf of this paper from nature.

And to claim it as debunking evolution would be a bad idea. Not every one agrees with the foot prints, and those that do are still questioning it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...king-land/

It is like those triassic period bird foot prints. Remember those? Course not if you did you would realize that it made creationist(and to be fair some scientist) look stupid.

---

And then he goes on to show just how he didn't read, much less understand, that science...

---

If you look at my original post, I said there should be a "plethora" of transitional fossils if your arguments are true. My atheist friends, in my eyes, you have failed to demonstrate that. Additionally, the "so called" transitional fossils that you presented may have some mosaic characteristics from different specials, but hardly evidence, as is in the case of Tikaalik, showing an animal transitioning from fish to tetrapod. I posted an insightful article, I believe this is within the rules of the forum. I am putting in bold the parts which I would like to emphasis.

The Evolutionist Claim Of A Transition From Water To Land Is A Lie; Tiktaalik Roseae: Another Missing Link Myth
by Harun Yahya

Darwinist media organizations have embarked upon a new wave of propaganda aimed at portraying a fossil recently described in the journal Nature i,ii,iii as a missing link. The fossil in question is that of a fish, discovered in Arctic Canada by the paleontologists Neil H. Shubin and Edward B. Daeschler in 2004. Given the scientific name Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil is estimated to be 385 million years old. Evolutionists looking for possible candidates for their tales of a transition from water to land are putting the fossil forward as an intermediate form by distorting its "mosaic" features.

Darwinist media organizations have embarked upon a new wave of propaganda aimed at portraying a fossil recently described in the journal Nature i,ii,iii as a missing link. The fossil in question is that of a fish, discovered in Arctic Canada by the paleontologists Neil H. Shubin and Edward B. Daeschler in 2004. Given the scientific name Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil is estimated to be 385 million years old. Evolutionists looking for possible candidates for their tales of a transition from water to land are putting the fossil forward as an intermediate form by distorting its “mosaic” features.

However, the claim of a transition from water to land is no more than a dream, because the physiological gulfs between terrestrial animals and fish cannot be overcome by any of the fictitious mechanisms of the theory of evolution. The latest attempt to make Tiktaalik roseae fit this scenario, which is supported out of blind devotion to the theory of evolution and rests on no scientific evidence whatsoever, is based on preconceptions and intentional misinterpretation. The facts the Darwinist media have concealed in their Tiktaalik roseae propaganda are set out below.

A mosaic life form which is no evidence for evolution

There are three well-preserved fossil specimens of Tiktaalik roseae. Some 3 meters long, the creature exhibits various mosaic characteristics. (Mosaic life forms contain features belonging to different groups of life forms.) As in fish, it has fins and scales. Features such as its flat head, mobile neck and relatively powerful rib structure are found in terrestrial animals. The creature, whose name is derived from the Inuit language Inuktitut and means “a large, shallow-water fish,” also has bones in its pectoral fins. Evolutionists distort these mosaic properties according to their own preconceptions and maintain that the animal is a transitional form between fish and terrestrial life forms.

Mosaic life forms, however, are very far from being the intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution. The present-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for instance, is a mosaic creature that possesses mammalian, reptilian and avian features at one and the same time. But nothing about it constitutes any evidence for the theory of evolution. Mosaic life forms are not what evolutionists need to find in order to back up their claims; they need to find “intermediate forms,” which would have to be with deficient, only half-formed and not fully functional organs. Yet every one of the organs possessed by mosaic creatures is complete and flawless. They have no semi-developed organs, and there are no fossil series that can be proposed as evidence that they evolved from some other life forms.

The theory of evolution hypothesizes that a process based on random mutations, in other words on chance, took place. According to this claim, the millions of living species on Earth must have evolved from a vast number of intermediate forms, all subjected to chance mutations, and as a result had deformed, abnormal structures, and the fossils of these so-called intermediate forms should have been found. To put it another way, the fossil record should be overflowing with the remains of life forms that can only be described as freaks of nature. However, this is known not to be the case. When species emerge, they do so suddenly, with all their distinguishing features fully developed, and with no series of freaks among them. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum, describes the position as follows:

In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms. (Tom Kemp, Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246)

Evolutionists attempt to give the impression that fossils actually support the idea of evolution. Yet the “missing link” concept is one that has been invented solely in the light of the needs of the theory of evolution and has no counterpart in the fossil record itself. The lack of fossil links alleged to connect species to one another has been known ever since Darwin’s time. Excavations by paleontologists since Darwin’s day have also failed to resolve this situation, which represents such a grave impasse for the theory of evolution and, on the contrary, have further confirmed the absence of any missing links among living groups.

E. R. Leach, author of the book Rethinking Anthropology, wrote this in his article in Nature:

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. (E. R. Leach; Nature, 293: 19, 1981)


A. S. Romer, one of the most eminent paleontologists of his time, said this on the subject:

"Links" are missing just where we most fervently desire them [to point to a transition between species] and it is all too probable that many "links" will continue to be missing. (A. S. Romer, in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution, 1963, p. 114)

David B. Kitts, professor of geology and the history of science at the University of Oklahoma admits the absence of the intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution:

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. (David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467)

The picture that emerges from the fossil record is completely compatible with creation. The record reveals that living things appeared suddenly and lived for long periods of time without undergoing any change at all. These facts can clearly be seen in an evaluation of evolution’s fossil impasse by the American paleontologist R. Wesson in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection. Stating that the gaps in the record are real, Wesson goes on to say that the absence of a record of any evolutionary branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static for long periods. Species and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but are replaced by another, and change is usually abrupt. (R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45)

Some 250,000 fossil species have been collected to date, and there is absolutely no trace of intermediate forms in any of them. Evolutionists are behaving irrationally and unscientifically by ignoring this and embarking on campaigns of missing link propaganda.

When the bodies of vertebrates are fossilized, they generally leave no remains behind apart from bones. However, bones leave traces of only a very limited part of vertebrate biology, about 1%. When evolutionists begin interpreting the fossil remains of an organism, most of the information about its biology has been lost. Evolutionists, with almost no information concerning the organism’s soft tissue biology “fill” the gap in their knowledge according to the demands of the theory of evolution, which they have adopted as a dogma long beforehand.

The intermediate form claims that evolutionists produce solely by looking at bones is no more than vague conjecture. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton makes the situation very clear:


Because soft biology of extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be insecure. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books: London, 1985, p. 180)


Even the most convincing appearing intermediate forms for evolutionists can subsequently let them down very badly. One excellent example of this is the Coelacanth phenomenon.

Sensational reports show that evolutionists have learned nothing from the Coelacanth phenomenon

As with the latest fossil Tiktaalik roseae, the Coelacanth is a fish that evolutionists once fondly imagined to be a missing link in the transition from water to land. Evolutionists examined 400-million-year-old fossil Coelacanths, which was once believed to be extinct, and drew a number of evolutionary conclusions from the remains. For example, they maintained that the bony structures in its fins were feet that helped the animal walk across the sea floor, and they also claimed that it possessed primitive lungs. The important point here is this: All these assumptions were made in the absence of any information about the Coelacanth’s soft tissue biology.

The erroneous nature of producing evolutionary fantasies in the absence of any information about the animal’s soft tissues emerged following an important discovery in 1938. A living Coelacanth was caught, showing that it was not, as had previously been thought, an extinct life form at all. Furthermore, many more living specimens were caught in subsequent years. Evolutionists immediately set about examining the fish’s anatomy and way of moving in its natural environment, and saw that the missing link assumptions they had ascribed to it were completely incorrect. The fish, which they had assumed to live in shallow waters and to move by crawling over the seabed, actually lived at depths of around 180 meters, and they also observed that its fins never made contact with the seabed at all. T[b]he structure they imagined to be an evolving lung turned out to be a fat-filled swim bladder that had nothing to do with respiration whatsoever. [/b]

The realization that the Coelacanth, which had once seemed such a convincing-looking intermediate form for evolutionists, was just an ordinary species of fish clearly shows that the intermediate form claim being made about this latest fossil is also based entirely on uncertainties and speculation, because it, too, is based on imaginative interpretation of soft tissues from the fossilized remains of an extinct life form. In short, the ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically vague information in the light of evolutionist dreams.

Evolutionists’ missing link propaganda actually works against their own claims

Whenever a discovery is depicted as a missing link, the evolutionist media always give the impression that a most extraordinary finding has been made, whereas this actually conflicts with their claims regarding the truth of evolution.

Were the theory of evolution true, then the geological strata would be full of fossil intermediates, and their numbers would be far greater than that of all the species living today or that ever lived in the past. Therefore, the discovery of missing links would be such a routine matter that it would have no news value at all.

Alternatively, if, as evolutionists claim, there were as much evidence for evolution as there is for the force of gravity, then reporting on missing link discoveries would be as nonsensical as reporting on a stone thrown into the air falling back to the ground. In the same way that we would regard a news report along the lines of “We threw a stone into the air and it actually fell back to Earth” as utterly insignificant, so we would regard reports reading “Paleontologists have discovered a new missing link” as equally insignificant. In short, if evolution were a “fact,” there would be no need for any missing link propaganda at all.

The evolutionary series in which Tiktaalik roseae has been placed is based solely on preconception

One can see in some newspapers that the latest fossil has been inserted as an intermediate form between Acanthostega and Eusthenopteron. By doing this, evolutionists are seeking to give the impression that the fossil record supports evolutionary transitions and that the evidence for this is mounting up with every passing day. The fact is though that these series represent no evidence that the organisms in question evolved at all. For example, laying out a row of screwdrivers in order of size does not show that they are all descended from one another.


In fact there is no known evolutionary line of descent from Eusthenopteron to Tiktaalik roseae or from Tiktaalik roseae to Acanthostega. These life forms are separated from one another by morphological gulfs based on profound differences and millions of years of time. Evolutionists reveal only their own prejudices with the series into which they place Tiktaalik roseae. Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature and also a paleontologist, admits that “missing links” and evolutionary series are the work of preconceptions:

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this pre-existing story. We call these new discoveries “missing links”, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. . . . Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. (Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 32)

(For information on the invalidity of evolutionist claims regarding Acanthostega and Eusthenopteron see,
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_..._1_07.html)

The myth of the transition from water to land: an illusory and dogmatic claim

The theory of evolution maintains that change in living things is based on the selection of beneficial differences among those produced by random mutations. However, it is a known fact that mutations have no power to cause anything to evolve by adding new information to living things’ DNA. Mutations damage the genetic information in living things’ DNA, producing effects that leave them deformed or dead. That is because the DNA sequences are exceedingly sensitive, and the effect on these of any mutation based on chance can only be harmful. For example, no random changes to the letters comprising a manual for an electronic device will turn it into a novel; it will merely damage the information in that manual. In the same way, it is totally impossible for mutations in a fish’s DNA to acquire it a powerful skeletal structure capable of weight-bearing, to construct temperature regulating systems or systems for the use of water (involving such a complex organ as the kidney), or to cause gills to turn into lungs.

It is clear that if a fish does not undergo rapid change in different ways, such as in terms of its respiratory system, excretory mechanism and skeletal structure, it will inevitably die. Such a chain of mutations must take place that it must immediately acquire the fish a lung, turn its fins into legs, add a kidney onto it, and provide its skin with a water retaining structure. Systems of such vital importance to the animal either have to change instantaneously, or else not at all. Such a change is impossible through evolution, which is proposed as a chance-based and aimless process. Any rationally thinking person can see that the only possible explanation is to accept that fish and terrestrial life forms were created independently.

In short, the scenario of a “transition from water to land” is at a complete dead-end. Evolutionists have no consistent fossil evidence they can point to. In her book Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara J. Stahl writes:


. . . [N]one of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the tetrapods." (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, p. 148)

Conclusion: Evolutionists have to realize they will never get anywhere with outmoded propaganda techniques left over from Adolf Hitler

As has been demonstrated, the “missing link” notion is an unscientific one with no factual counterpart in the fossil record and used solely because of the requirements of the theory of evolution. The way that the Darwinist media cling so strongly to the idea is a method they resort to in order to spread their own ideologies among the public. Evolutionists have no evidence with which to spread their theory, which is the greatest scientific deception in history. All they can do in the face of the collapse, one by one, of such fossils as the Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx, and equine series once defended as evidences of evolution, consists of frequently and loudly ensuring that the missing link fraud is kept on the public agenda.

All these endeavors are a propaganda technique, as described in the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s statement that a lie would be believed by many if repeated loudly and often enough.

Evolutionists must accept the fact that paleontology demolishes their theory, and must realize that constantly repeating their missing link tales will not alter the fact in the slightest.

--------------------------------------------------

i. Daeschler et al., "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan," Nature 440, 757-763 (6 April 2006)
ii. Shubin et al., "The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb," Nature 440, 764-771 (6 April 2006)
iii. Per Erik Ahlberg and Jennifer A. Clack, "Palaeontology: A firm step from water to land," Nature 440, 747-749 (6 April 2006)

Since the introduction of Argument #1, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions. At least to this point, I must conclude, that those trying to demonstrate that there are transitional fossils, have failed. I must now focus my energies on Argument #2.

---

And this, ladies and gentlemen, was only argument #1.... I wonder how open to research rev777 will be for the other 6 arguments...

Such seems to be the creationist model: spew faulty arguments and refuse to listen and acknowledge the corrections made.

My desire to participate in debunking the other arguments is waning...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respect everyone's views. However, please consider mine as well. If you are not interested in Argument #2, I understand.

---

I'm still astonished that in the 21st century we are still even having this argument.

What's next Rev? Germ theory is false and diseases are really caused by demons?

Or the stars are just pretty lights in the sky?

When looking at them poetically they are indeed.

---

I'm still astonished that in the 21st century we are still even having this argument.

What's next Rev? Germ theory is false and diseases are really caused by demons?

Or the stars are just pretty lights in the sky?

Germs no, but their is a devil and he has his minions. I hope you aren't influenced by them? Well, He might not be worried about you since you don't believe in Him but could very well be keeping to his agenda.