|
Me: "There are no intermediate forms between animals, which should be abundant
if evolution were true."
You: "Are you kidding? There are TONS of transitional forms in the evolution of the horse. (Hyracotherium to Equus) Connecting fish with amphibians are such lungfish as Eusthenopteron Sterropterygion. (look them up) Connecting amphibians and reptiles are such species as Seymouria, which is neither classified as an amphibian or a reptile. Connecting reptiles to birds are species like Archeopteryx. There are even connections between reptiles and mammals through Cynognathus and Diarthrognathus. Look them up. There is a clear evolutionary progression in humans too. Homo habilus, homo erectus, homo sapiens, etc."
I'm going to use alot of links to others research becauase: A. It's really late and I'm tired :) B. They have excellent evidence.
I'll start with horses. Here is a good link which
explains it all: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-063b.htm
About the lungfish.
Taken from this link: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-091b.htm
"...few evolutionists consider any form of lungfish to have been the forerunner of amphibians, mainly because of skeletal differences, for the lungfish has no hint of legs. Only museum visitors are still mistaken.
Actually the skeletal differences are only one of the many problems encountered in trying to link fish and amphibian. The internal organs are quite different also. Major changes would have had to occur in just the right order to accomplish the transition. For instance, while the pelvic girdle is forming (by mutation), and the gills are mutating into true lungs and the ears and eyes must mutate to work in the dry air. How could any possible ancestor accomplish these and other simultaneous changes?"
Here is some evidence against Seymouria taken from
this link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2403.asp
"Seymouria, a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the earliest true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. Also, it was probably completely amphibian in its reproduction - the jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry."
Also taken from this link:
"Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, was asked why he had included no transitional forms in his book on evolution. He replied:
'… 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 … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Some more information from that link (That article
is awesome, you should read it.) about Archaeopteryx.
"Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status — a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. Feduccia further criticises the dinosaur-to-bird theory:
'It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails', exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.'
And for the reptile\mammal connection. This link
is incredibly comprehansive, and shows those examples to be wrong: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-102.htm
Lastly, humans. You used Homo habilus and homo erectus. From the link: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-171.htm
Homo habilis first:
"The discovery of a more complete fossil skeleton of Homo habilis, although still quite fragmentary, considerably strengthens the contention of creation scientists that these creatures, while not the same as any one of the modern apes, were, nevertheless, simply apes, in no way related to man. The fossil remains were discovered by Tim White of the Johanson team and are described in a recent Nature article. 5 Several important features of this creature took evolutionists by surprise. The first shock was its tiny stature. The fossil is of an adult female that stood only about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of "Lucy," the alleged 3.8-million-year-old adult female, A. afarensis, discovered in Ethiopia by Johanson. Furthermore, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis. Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees. All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy."
Now Homo erectus. Taken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/263.asp
"Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together."
You: "You are right in saying that there are no transitional species between the phyla. For some reason there are no (or few) studiable fossils from that era (before the phyla split.) However, I think you would agree that either everything evolved or nothing evolved. Since we can trace the evolution of so many different classes, the using the phyla argument to universally refute evolution is ridiculous."
I say nothing evolved. I'm 7 for 7 of those examples of transitional fossils. Give me some more. KC2GWX 73's
|
