Friday, August 31, 2012

Transitional Forms, The (The Transitional Species)

The theory of evolution claims that all living species on Earth, past and present evolved from one another. The transformation from one species to another, according to this theory, occurred slowly and in stages. Therefore, there must have been at least several transitional forms between two successive species, exhibiting characteristics of each. For example, there must have been creatures with both gills and lungs, fins and feet, alive during the millions of years between the time that fish first left the water and became amphibians. Evolutionists call these imaginary creatures "transitional forms."
If this theory were true, there would have to be millions, even billions of such creatures that lived in the past, and some of these monstrosities must have left remains in the fossil record. But so far, the fossil record has revealed not one single transitional form. In his book The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin writes these words in his chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory":
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? . . . But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? . . . Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 254
Taking their lead from these words, evolutionist paleontologists since the 19th century have been scouring the globe in search of these transitional forms. In spite of all their efforts, they have not found any. All the findings from their research and excavations have revealed, contrary to their expectations, that living creatures appeared on Earth all at once and fully formed.
The evolutionist Gordon R. Taylor, points out in his book, The Great Evolution Mystery:
Professor G. G. Simpson is an ardent Darwinist, but he goes so far as to say: ‘The absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon.' This is true of invertebrates as well as vertebrates and also of plants. He adds: ‘The line making connection with common ancestry is not known even in one instance.' The rodents, he notes, appear suddenly, already equipped with their specialized gnawing teeth. As to the mammals, ‘In all 32 orders of mammals, the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.'255
Today, there are more than 100 million fossils in thousands of museums and collections all over the world. All these are divided from the others by definite demarcations, and all have their own unique structures. No fossils of semi-fish/semi-amphibian, semi-dinosaur/semi-bird, semi-ape/semi-human and similar life forms of the kind so optimistically expected by evolutionists have ever been unearthed. The absence of a single intermediate form among such a rich fossil record shows, not that the fossil record is lacking, but that the theory of evolution is untrue.
As the noted biologist, Francis Hitching, writes this in his book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong:
If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The ‘minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals. 256
The fossil record shows that living species came into being all at once, fully formed in all their variety, and remained unchanged throughout long geological periods. A noted evolutionist paleontologist at Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges this fact:
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis-most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance-in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."257
In general, evolutionists deliberately use the concept of transitional forms to mislead. The term "transitional form" refers to a developing creature midway between two species with insufficient and partly formed organs. Sometimes, because they misunderstand the idea of a transitional form, Darwinists impute transitional-form characteristics to a creature that is not transitional at all. For example, the fact that one group of living creatures exhibits characteristics commonly found in another group, does not imply that the first group is a transitional form.
A fine example is the Australian platypus. This creature is a mammal but lays eggs like a reptile, and also has a beak like a duck's. Scientists call the platypus and other such animals "mosaic creatures." Noted paleontologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge state that evolutionist paleontologists do not count the platypus as an example of a transitional form.258 (See Platypus.)
254. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp.172-280.
255. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, Sphere Books, 1984, p. 78.
256. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New Haven: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p. 40.
257. S.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977.
258. S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol 3, 1977, p.147.


  1. "Fins and feet"

    Uh... No. Fins are limbs. Legs evolved from fins. The Mexican Walking fish has legs. A lot of semi-aquatin creatures have webbed feet that can act as both, the Getfile has bones in its fins. To my knowledge, no known animal ever had completely separate limbs to act as both fins and legs.

    "The fossil record has shown not one single transitional form"
    Are you fucking kidding me? It's chock full of them! The real trick is deciding what's NOT a transitional form. Technically, nothing is not a transitional form unless it never has any kids.

    1. "They have not found any"
      At this point I'm wondering where exactly you get your information; from actual science books or from Creationist propaganda. I mean seriously, have you even bothered to look up ANY of this from ACTUAL science sources?

      "Very close to currant living animals"
      First of all, if that was true, it would still prove evolution. "Very close" is not the same thing as "identical". And without mutation or natural selection, all living things would be exact, EXACT, genetic clones of its ancestors.
      Second, that is a blatant lie. Elephants have ancestors that look more like pigs, there's hundreds of hominids alone, and do I even have to mention dinosaurs?

    2. "Appeared suddenly"
      They did not "apear suddenly". Look, the fossil record is not complete, but it's pretty fucking big. We have what we have and we don't have what we don't have. But what we DO have, combined with Occam's razor, strongly sugests Dreationism is stupid.

      "No fossil is semi-fish semi-amphibian"
      Those exist right now! They're still alive! I've seen them with my own eyes. 2 of them in a tank. Mexican walking fish.

      "Semi dinosaur/semi bird"
      Actually there's an entire catagory of those. Pterosaurs.

    3. "Semi ape/semi human"
      A) we ARE semi ape/semi human! There's only 1.5% genetic difference between chimps and humans
      B) There's an entire catagory of those too, and I'm frankly shocked you didn't know that. Maybe as a human I'm bias. But hominids are the most interesting thing in palaeontology. How the hell do you not know what a Neandrathol is?? OK technically neandrathols lived at the same time as Homo sapiens and are probably not our ancestors, but still! How the fucking hell can you never have heard of them???!!!

      "Finely graduated fossils..."
      Strictly speaking you are not wrong, but I can't help but notice that thus far, you have yet to mention mutation or natural selection. Are you under the impression that evolution just happens for no reason? It's all just really slow changes that just happen and never speeds up or slows down due to circumstances or mutants?


    4. "All at once"
      Wait, did I accidently read the same part twice or did you re-write entire paragraphs twice? This part of the article seems almost exactly like something you already said 4 paragraphs ago.
      Also, you are blatantly lying again. By your logic, there should be bunnies in the Canberrian layer and there should be mammoths now.

      1) Way off, very few birds have teeth or claws on their wings like pterosaurs.
      2) That's a lie and even if true would STILL disprove creationism.

      Logically, if the Bible was true, all species should have slowly migrated in all directions from Mt. Sinai. Which means the fossil record SHOULD demonstrate a diminishing radius of fossils the further down you go, culminating underneath Mt. Sinai. Also there should be a garden somewhere guarded bu 2 angels and a flaming sword.

    5. "Partly formed organs"
      WRONG! Dead wrong! That's the sort of thing Darwin himself said would DISprove his species. Maybe LaMarkian Evolution would still be true but not Darwinian Evolution. He believed that each stage of Evolution should be at least a slight improvement in some way on the previous stage. And furthermore, he said that if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that an animal could not possibly have evolved from A to C without B being a creature that's actually less able to survive and/or breed than A, then his theory would fall apart.

      'Does not imply that the first group is a transitional form"
      Wait... What? You're talking about living subspecies now.
      You do know that the evolution of dogs is a DOCUMENTED FACT that *WE* did, right? We've been fucking with their breeding since the Stone Age. In fact, there's a hypothesis that the fact that we domesticated wolves and Neandrathols didn't is one of the reasons we won.


    6. "Platypus"
      There's nothing paticularly unusual about the platypus, OK? It just looks wierd if you're more used to European animals. MOST Australian animals are wierd to foreigners. Some are the same as you get everywhere; crocks, bats, humans, dingos, insects, snakes, seagulls, but we also have some wierd birds, and all our mammals (except humans, dingos and bats) are Masupials, creatures that evolves here in all kinds of directions and are rare elsewhere. (Although I think the Americas also has possums) We got big-eared things that look like teddy bears but are no more closely related to bears than you are, big hopping things that unlike most grass-eating animals attack with it's hind legs (a ram can attack BY moving, a kangaroo can attack OR move but not both. A pissed off male kangaroo will just stand up tall saying "hey you! Come here! Seriously, stand right here on this exact spot, will ya?" Spike-covered long nosed things that eat ants that also lay eggs, creatures that can glide due to the webbed skin connecting the fore and hind legs on either side, etc. Platypi are neither more nor less wierd than anything else. It's physical resemblance to a bird is purely coincidental.