Comments & Feedback

Hi Ordovician:

You wrote:

"I'm a Master's student of Geology and Paleontology, working on the evolutionary trends and biostratigraphy of Cretaceous foraminifera. For me to here laypeople say there is no such thing as transitional fossils is absolutely RIDICULOUS. I have literally hundreds of specimens proving that."

Actually, I will bet you don't have one transitional fossil that illustrates the intermediate steps that are necessary under the regime of random mutation and natural selection. (That's why the charge against Evolution remains valid.)

You have fossils, perhaps, showing variations in finished product species. Like Darwin's finches -- all of the finches were fully functional, working species -- none were in the transitional mutational stage.

Recall the claim that reptiles evolved to birds? Then Archaeopteryx is offered as a transitional fossil? It is not transitional in the sense required to confirm the neo-Darwinian model.

You need to have fossils of the intermediate transitions. As mutation is random, not planned, you need to have fossils of reptiles with one wing, or half wings, or three wings. (And not really completed wings, but wings that are dorky and malformed and worthless). Because, under the neo-Darwinian model, you have to have all of the false starts, which made up a population (as I think you later assert), all of whom had the modifications in their wings that were only partial. (Mutation does not create fully functioning wings from fully functioning legs in just one generation.)

There must be these partial, dorky, malformed wing like structures attached to reptiles in the fossil record. There had to be millions of such individuals living, so that natural selection could "select" the most fit of these, and for the individuals to find one another to mate and reproduce others like them, who at some point in the generations, might undergo further mutation in a direction that moved the winglike structure closer to a functioning wing.

But you don't have these kinds of fossils -- otherwise, the Encyclopedia of Evolution (for example) would show them. It doesn't -- I looked.

Even when I was a raving atheist, I could not believe that neo-Darwinian model. The evidence does not show the necessary millions of truly transitional forms.

If a proposition lacks supporting evidence, then I don't feel impelled to believe it. Regrettably, many "scientists" refuse to see the obvious when it comes to the absence of transitional mutant fossils.

— Rick Dial

Leave a comment ...

As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.

Stop Tracking

Back To Top