Evolution

Transitional Fossils

Evolution Never Happened | See All The Videos. Go to the: 30 Second Video Menu

download video

Are There Any Transitional Fossils:

horse evolution

For just over 100 years horse "evolution" was used to demonstrate that evolution actually happened. And they had the transitional fossils to prove it... until it was found those fossils were not transitional. but simply showed variation within a created kind. You don't hear much about horse evolution anymore, although the exhibts, such as the one pictured here, remain in the museums.

Evolution supposedly works through small, gradual changes. The obvious assumption is that we should find an overwhelming number of transitional fossils. They should be everywhere. But they aren't. They are not just scarce... they don't exist. The situation is so dramatic that, in order to try to save evolution, Harvard paleontologist Stephern J. Gould came up with the theory of punctuated euqilibrium -- the idea that evolutionary changes happen too quickly to be captured in the fossil record, and then the organism remains unchanged for long periods of time while fossils form.

While working as the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson wrote a book about evolution. When creationist Luther Sunderland wrote asking why there were no transitional fossils in the book, Dr. Patterson wrote back, explaining:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Ptterson continued explaining by referencing Stephen J. Gould:

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (L. Sunderland, "Darwin’s Enigma," Master Books, 1998, pages 101–102. Patterson’s letter was written in 1979.

The situation is the same today.


Let's Look At The Fossils Mentioned in the Video

Tiktaalik: This was a lobed-finned fish the supposedly was the first to evolve legs and walk on land... until fossil tracks of an animal walking on land were dated (based on evolutionary thinking) at 397 million years old. That is 18 million years older than Tiktaalik! That means Tiktaalik cannot be the transitional form it was thought to be. It's just another lob-finned fish, like the coelacanth. Before Tiktaalik it was thought that the coelacanth was the first fish to walk on land, until living coelacanths were found in the Indian ocean. Their lobe-fins were used for swimming, not walking.

Archaeopteryx: This is a true bird. The most commonly cited evidence that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur evolving into a bird are that it has teeth and a long tail. It turns out there are other fossil birds with teeth and long tails. On the other hand Archaeopteryx has all the features of a bird, including fully modern flight feathers. Recent studies looking at the structure of the wing bones concluded that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and was capable of flight directly from the ground. No evolution here.

Australopithecines (the Lucy fossil): It has long been known that the Australopithecines, including Lucy, are not human ancestors. They are fully knuckle-walking apes. The have a knuckle-walker's locking wrist, and the grasping feet of a tree dweller. They appear to be bonabo monkeys. The "strongest" evidence supporting Australopithecines as being human ancestors were the Laetoli footprints and the shape of the pelvis. The footprints were found about 1000 km away from the Lucy fossil, in sediment dated a little older than Lucy... and they are 100% human footprints. No one questions that they are human footprints. So it was assumed they were made by Australopithecines. But it wsa later learned that Australopithecine feet are physically different from human feet (Australopithecines have ape feet), and could not have made the Laetoli footprints. Concerning the pelvis... the Lucy pelvis was modified by paleontologies to look human. There is even a PBS Nova video showing this. No human ancestor here.

Whale Evolution: The claim today is that whale fossils provide the clearest, most obvious proof of evolution. Yet, some of the transitional fossils supposedly supporting whale evolution involve intentional deception. In 1993 a partial skull was used to create an artist's rendition of an animal called Pakicetus that was supposely a transitional whale fossil. By 2001 a complete Pakicertus fossil was found. It was nothing like a whale nor a transitional fossil.

Ambulocetus is supposed to be an intermediate between Pakicetus and Rodhocetus. But the claimed characteristics of Ambulocetus (an ear bone like a whale's and a thin cheek bone) both turned out to be false claims. In additiobn, Ambulocetus supposedly shows the evolution of the whale's blowhole. The only evidence for a blowhole is a skull that appears to be damaged by an impact. Even secular scientists agree this is not a blowhole, yet models of this skull with a blow hole are still being supplied to museums.

Rodhocetus is supposed to be a land animal that has developed a tail fluke and flippers.... except there is no fossil evidence for a tail fluke or flippers. Rodhocetus was laways a land animal.

When put to the test and examined without bias, supposed transitional fossils turn out to be normal variation within a kind, or not related to each other.


More Information

Whale Evolution Fraud (CMI)

Did Lucy Walk Upright? (CMI)

Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again (ICR)

Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link? (AIG)


SORRY,
I NEVER KNEW YOU

Wide and Narrow Roads


Many people, when they die, will stand before Jesus and say:

Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? - Matthew 7:22

And Jesus will say to them:

I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. - Matthew 7:23

Get your Bible out and read Matthew 7:21-23. These are some of the most frightening verses in the Bible.

They describe people who believe with all their heart that they are saved. They have no doubt that they know Jesus and they've done many great things that prove this is true. Put Jesus says, 'Depart from me...' He doesn't know them.

Are you truly trusting Jesus? Scripture says to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). Have you done that?

Do you read your Bible regularly? Do you fear false teaching? Are you growing in your obedience to God? Are you growing in your understanding of what God wants? Do you regularly share the good news about Jesus with others?