It is: 2 days till Palm Sunday
It is: 7 days till Victory at the Cross
It is: 9 days till Easter Sunday
In the Spotlight:
Not much to share today, but the final Lego Jurassic World set has just been revealed, and it is called Raptor Escape. Check it out!
|From this, we know Omar Sy's character's name is "Barry".|
What do you think is happening in this scene?
Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan
|This photo from 1880 portrays an Archaeopteryx fossil, preserved with feathers. Is this a piece of the "mountains of evidence" for evolution?|
Dr. Brian Alters
“...paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage...creationists deny the clear fossil record...The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs...are among the most gorgeous examples of evolutionary change yet found.”
Brian Switek (emphasis mine)
“...[Tiktaalik's] discovery sheds light on a pivotal point in the history of life on earth...”
author of: “Tiktallik.uchicago.edu/meetTik”
“I think Australopithecus sediba is best seen as a compelling example of the highly experimental nature of evolution...around the time of the origin of Homo.”
“...impenetrable roadblocks [concerning whale evolution] exist only for those that insist upon blinding themselves to the ever-mounting evidence [for it].”
– author of “Creationist Mindblocks to Whale Evolution”
We hear the same thing repeated over and over again: “Creationists are stupid science-deniers because we have rejected and blinded ourselves to the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Evolution has been proven true, foolish anti-science lovers!” Yeah, I've heard it time and time again. But is the “mountain of evidence” for evolution really a mountain...or just the mirage of a mountain? Since, according to evolutionists, evolution happens far too slow us to see it in action today, evidence for evolution must come from the past, and as we can't directly observe what happened in the past, we can't apply the scientific method (true science) to the theory of evolution. Therefore evolutionists are forced to look at the fossil record, where we can see the long-dead remains of organisms that once lived on this planet.
Evolutionists, such as Brian Switek, insist that creationists deny what can “clearly” be seen in the fossil record. They regard creationists as ignoring the fossil evidence. How much of that is actually true? Has evolution been proven by the fossil record? The ultimate “proof” evolutionists like using to lend evidence to their case is to talk about transitional forms (otherwise known as the “missing links”). What exactly is a transitional form, or fossil? Well, according to the website Understanding Evolution, transitional forms are:
“Fossils or organisms that show intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants...There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.”Really? How true is that statement? Well, over the years, several transitional fossils have been brought forth as the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Today, we are going to look at a few of the most popular and see just how well evolutionary thinking really stands up to the fossil evidence. Resources will be provided at the end of this post so that you may dig into deeper research.
|Tiktaalik is supposed to be the missing link between fish and amphibians.|
|This is where Tiktaalik was discovered.|
|Was Tiktaalik really the "walking fish", or should that idea just walk right back into the water? (Pun intended)|
|The coelocanth was also once thought to use its fins for walking until the discovery of the living creature in 1938.|
|The supposed evolution of fish to amphibians.|
Archaeopteryx and other “Dino-Birds”
|Archaeopteryx has long been the poster boy for transitional forms.|
What is the evidence evolutionists use to insist such a claim? Most of this evidence has come from northeast China. As “evidence”, most evolutionists point to the similarities between maniraptoran dinosaurs and birds. The bird Archaeopteryx, and the “feathered dinosaurs” such as Microraptor and Anchiornis all have characteristics of birds, including feathered wings (Microraptor had a wing on each limb), and hollow bones, as well as characteristics generally associated with reptiles, such as teeth, fingered wings, bony tails, and no keel. There seems to be two genres of “feathered dinosaurs” that have been discoveries: dinosaurs preserved with what evolutionists call “protofeathers” and creatures with actual feathers, like the ones discussed above. Evolutionists seem to believe the debate upon whether theropods evolved into birds has already been settled; Brian Switek insists, “The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs...are among the most gorgeous examples of evolutionary change yet found”. But is this claim really just another feathery flight of fantasy?
|Microraptor is allegedly a feathered dinosaur from China.|
|This Sinosauropteryx is a close relative to Compsognathus, a small dinosaur found in Europe.|
|Caudipteryx and other feathered "dinosaurs" were actually birds. Caudipteryx itself was likely flightless.|
|Thanks to findings of fossilized color pigments, we have evidence that Microraptor was at least partially black in color.|
Hyracotherium and the Equus
|Horse evolution is clearly seen in the fossil record...or is it?|
|Hyracotherium is supposed to be the first phase of horse evolution.|
|This is the skull of Pliohippus.|
|Hyracotherium wasn't even a species of horse!|
|Whale evolution is commonly regarded as the best evidence for evolution.|
|Did whales like Basilosaurus really evolve from small, furry, land mammals?|
- Enormous lungs that can hold their breath for a very long time
- A powerful, horizontal tail fluke
- Eyes that can see with great clarity underwater and can withstand high pressure
- Ears for hearing underwater and with an eardrum protected from high pressure
- Nostrils on top of the head
Now, evolution is propelled forward by chance-random processes – primarily gene mutations and natural selection. Therefore, whale evolution is depending upon new genetic information for tail flukes, a blowhole and other aquatic-adaptations to come about by pure accident. This Creation Ministries International's article sums up the problems with this idea pretty well:
“One thing to note [about whale evolution] is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and [natural] selection. If mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this take time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than 1,700 mutations. This is not nearly enough to generate new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise.”
|Pakicetus was a small wolf-like animal.|
|Ambulocetus might have been semi-aquatic, but it was no whale-in-the-making!|
|Rodhocetus is an early whale...I'm totally convinced! Yeah, right.|
|Basilosaurus and other whales were designed for life in the ocean.|
|Australopithecus is supposed to be the missing link between ape and mankind.|
|Evolutionists often emphasize human features on fossil apes to make them more human, ignoring the loads of ape-like features.|
|The Laetoli footprints were made by a human being living at the same time as Australopithecus.|
|Neanderthals, cro-magnon and Homo erectus were just ancient people!|
This article doesn't cover nearly a quarter of the information proposed in evolutionary internet articles, books and other sources. Evolutionist claims will continue to pop up on a regular basis. However, as creationists, I urge you to take them all with a pinch of salt, because they are never as solid as they seem on the outside. As I continue to research more and more about these “transitional forms”, I realize a pattern emerges: most transitional forms are proclaimed loud and clear as the latest evidence for evolution based upon fragmentary and speculative evidence. Then, after the hype dies down, a few years pass until 1) new fossil discoveries reveal this “transitional fossil” can't really be what it was originally claimed to be or 2) another fossil of a transitional form will override the previous discovery. It happens almost every single time! If proof of evolution in the fossil record is so apparent, why must they keep switching out transitional fossils for other, “better” ones? Is it possible that they don't exist at all?
Of course, in light of several of the issues with “transitional fossils” I've displayed, some evolutionists will argue that the fossil record is incomplete, so we shouldn't expect to find every fossil in the right sequence. That's true, but compared to all the “complete” creatures we've discovered, the number of “transitionals”, all of which are controversial, even among evolutionists. If evolution were true, we should expect even more transitional fossils than we do complete ones!
So what of these creatures with features that are usually used as “proof” that they are transitional? Don't these similarities mean they are related to each other? Not at all! Think about the duck-billed platypus, a mammal that lays eggs and has a beak like a duck and webbed feet and flattened tail like a beaver. It has features of several different kinds of animals, just like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Australopithecus and Ambulocetus. But no one suggests the platypus is related to ducks or beavers. The best way to describe such creatures is to refer to them as “mosaics”. This is exactly what we expect to find in light of Genesis 1:21 and Genesis 1:25:
“So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:21.
“God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:25.As you can see, God created all the different “kinds” (usually referring to the “family” level of classification rather than “species” or “genus”) of creatures to reproduce after their own kind; in other words, all other creatures that descended from these “created kinds” were of the same “kind” of animal. Animals were not supposed to change from one kind into a completely different kind, and this is just what we see today and in the fossil record. Therefore, creatures with features similar to other kinds of animals don't show evolution, but rather, the creativity of God, our Creator.
|Archaeopteryx and other "transitional fossils" were really just mosaics rather than transitional.|
Disclaimer: Many (or in some cases all) of the photographs and images above are not mine. If you own one or more of them and would like them to be removed, politely let me know via my email address.