Transitional Fossils

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. Macroevolution, Pattern and Process by Steven M. Stanley

And God said, "Let the water teem (abundantly) with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." {21} So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds (a sort), and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. {22} God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Gen 1:20-22 NIV)

The difficulty with transitional fossils is distinguishing between the great diversity that exists in the animal kingdom and the development of a new species. Just one new fossil like Archeopteryx shows diversity, to show a transition we require a lineage or sequence of more than one fossil related by descent. Darwin proposed that new species come about by a series of incremental changes, the fossil record should show this. Further this should not be just microevolution, such as the horse series, but the development of something entirely new.

If the fossil record truly showed a series of fine transitions from one species to another entirely new species I would shout it from every hilltop, every newspaper, every web site...

If all these transitionals exist then why did Richard Goldschmidt have to come up with his hopeful monster theory and the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium in order to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record? The hopeful monster theory has one serious drawback, you need two of them to survive, one male and one female.

There is another problem with the so-called transitional fossils. They do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models. The often cited Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species. Our experience of living species indicates that there is a vast variety of species on the planet filling just about every possible ecological niche. Kathleen Hunt says that "the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups (diapsid reptiles to birds) were in fact related" italics mine. It does nothing of the sort, unless you assume that evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaption.

Even the so called horse series simply proves that we can arrange or classify a group of fossils in an orderly fashion, something Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) could do well before Darwin's time (1809-82). Get a pile of bones and arrange it in an orderly fashion and then convince a gullible public that evolution is true. At best it is an example of microevolution.

One wonders what the evolutionists would make of the Duck-billed platypus (ornithorhynchus). It lays and hatches eggs like a reptile and a bird, but the suckles the young like a mammal, but it does not have teats; the young feed through numerous tiny openings in the skin of the mother’s belly. It is covered in fur and is warm blooded like a mammal. It has web-fingered legs and an absence of teeth. Oh yes, it has a bill like a duck.

Books:

1. Evolution: The Fossils still say No!, Duane T Gish, Creation-Life Publishers. (Good summary of the fossil evidence) - Luv im or 'ate im - he's still around and doing well at Amazon.
2. Science and Earth History : The Evolution/Creation Controversy by Arthur N. Strahler. This is the book that will strike terror into the hearts of creationists! "uniformitarian dogmas being presented as facts"
3. Evolution : A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton Paperback 2nd edition (December 1996)
4. Macroevolution, Pattern and Process by Steven M. Stanley
5. Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz
6. In Search of Deep Time : Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life by Henry Gee
7. Bones of Contention : A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow
8. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution by Robert L. Carroll
9. Evolution of the Vertebrates : A History of the Backboned Animals Through Time by Edwin Harris Colbert, Michael Morales (Contributor)
10. The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives by Mauricio Anton (Illustrator), Alan Turner, F. Clark Howell
11. Systematics and the Fossil Record : Documenting Evolutionary Patterns by Andrew B. Smith
12. Evolution and the Fossil Record by Keith Allen, Derek Briggs (Editor) out of print
13. ? suggestions please

Links:

1. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Copyright © 1994-1997 by Kathleen Hunt
2. Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:
3. Transitional fossils exist!!
4. Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms
5. Duane Gish's Response to Richard Trott
6. Interpreting the Real Fossil Record By Russell Stewart
7. A Critique of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1995) Mark I. Vuletic
8. What Do the Fossils Say? by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
9. Dinosaurs and Evolution Jeff Poling with David Buckna
10. The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
11. Making Man Out of Monkeys by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
12. Darwin was wrong!
13. The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution But Is Positive Evidence For Creation!
14. Fossil Man
15. Gould on transitionals
16. Challenging Evolutionists By David Posey and W. Frank Walton
17. Response to the Creation Science Home Page's "Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution" edited by Mark I. Vuletic with contributions from Thomas L. Moore
18. On the imperfection of the geological record from Charles Darwin's Origin of Species
19. A review of Darwin's "THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" by Charley Dewberry
20. Paleontology Page - Glenn R Morton