Question:
Transitional fossils HAVE been discovered, thus proving evolution, Archaeopteryx?
Marcus
2013-03-10 00:14:15 UTC
There are seemingly no records of fossils doing a step-by-step transition into new species according to the evolutional theory.
However, an exception is Archaeopteryx, a marvelous link connecting two-legged dinosaurs and modern birds. The only thing bird-like about it were its feathers.

Also, all parts of the Archaeopteryx were fully formed and fully functional, it's wings were fully formed already, perfect for flight. There aren't any evolving stubs or flaps of skin on it to morph into a modern bird.
Furthermore, there is evidence of birds dating before the Archaeopteryx. If the evolutionary theory were correct, these instances should be normal, not exceptions. Rather than step-by-step transitions to a new species, the evidence shows a sudden appearance of life forms. Such gradual Darwinianism "gradualism" is completely absent.
Nine answers:
?
2013-03-10 00:27:08 UTC
.



ARCHAEOPTERYX = NOT a transitional fossil.



ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A FAKE

Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned hoax—and there is clear evidence to prove it!

At the same time that mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully contrived fake, confirmed evolutionists had been moving toward the position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird, and not a half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a "bird," they avoided the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.

THREE INITIAL PROBLEMS—Before considering the *Hoyle/*Watkins exposé, let us first look at some other facets of this overall problem.

You will observe, in the following discussion, that there are some observational differences between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil and carefully added wings to it!

Here is an important analysis. You will want to read it carefully:

"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.

1 - A profitable business. There are those who believe that Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would have been relatively easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone would make it easy to carefully engrave something on it. Since the first Archaeopteryx sold for such an exorbitant price to the highest bidder (the British Museum), the second, produced 16 years later, had a reptile-like head—and sold for a tremendous amount to the museum in Berlin. The owner of that quarry made a small fortune on the sale of each of those two specimens.

2 - Feathers added to a fossil? In these specimens we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a photograph of the "London specimen," you will note that the flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines—nothing else!

It would be relatively easy for someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and carefully scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable limestone. All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a bird as a pattern to copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its wing pattern onto the reptile specimen. That is all that would be required, and the result would be a fabulous amount of profit. And both specimens did produce just that!

3 - All specimens came from the same place. Keep in mind that all six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia, Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere else—anywhere in the world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever been discovered!

Living in Germany, at the same time that these six specimens were found, was *Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He would have been in the prime of life at the time both specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was the most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent; and it is well-known that he was very active at the time the finds were made. He was continually seeking for new "proofs" of evolution, so he could use them in his lecture circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual illustrations; and it is now known that he spent time, on the side, enthusiastically inventing them!
belshe
2016-08-07 09:09:46 UTC
Speaking as a scientist (My faith has by no means interfered with believing in Evolution--simplest my scientific inquiry has) These will not be transitional fossils. A transitional fossil would be a creature that is developing something that wasn't there before. For instance, a skeleton. You are not able to have a species and not using a skeleton, and all of a sudden there is one with a whole and dealing skeleton. It can be too intricate--there need to be in between steps that show how anything would go from a cartilage creature to a creature with some hardened, bone like ingredients, to trends of joints and many others. If evolution comes from additional genetic material thru mutations, then not only must we see these partial no longer utterly developed transitional states of problematic constructions in the fossil document, however we must additionally see them happening at present with the thousands of species we learn about, we should see a few of them establishing, within the middle of or at the end of the change. What about humans? Good, the one additional genetic material being delivered that i know of (and i am no expert) could be these with Down's syndrome (they have an extra gene) and those with the XXX and XYY intercourse genes. This might be an argument showing how evolution would take location.
?
2013-03-10 00:18:21 UTC
Archaeopteryx was a fully formed flyer with eliptical wings typical of modern woodland birds. If it was alive today it would be no more strange than a platypus. Anyway, a lot of paleontologists think that birds evolved from the lizard hipped dinosaurs rather than the bird hipped dinosaurs.
Candy
2013-03-10 00:23:57 UTC
Oh really, and why is this, because religious people have been bringing up the fact they weren't? Amazing how fossils magically manifest in such a timely fashion to atheist or evolutionist arguments.. Not really so hard to send them digging quite deep, is it on YA? Desperately grasp much?

The argument they are making is not about one more completely different species that appears to be a go between in species evolution. Its the fact that there would be fossils for near every step between every evolution of every species on planet Earth, and there's not.
coffee_pot12
2013-03-10 00:31:48 UTC
ALL fossils are found in sedimentary rock, all jumbled up and disarticulated. Massive areas of bone beds with creatures frozen in time (in mud) buried alive!



You know what is really funny!!!With out the world wide flood they would not have any fossils to try to claim evolution!!!HAHAHA!!!





Pharaoh said to make bricks without straw.



Creation says to make fossil without mud.
2013-03-10 00:17:24 UTC
I don't think theists understand that even if we couldn't scower this earth to find an exact species from an exact time frame, we've still found thousands of species' remains from before this earth was created by their god, do you people not understand? It's like seeing someone eat a cookie, then look away and then complain that you didn't see them eat the second cookie even though it's gone.
BrokenEye
2013-03-10 00:17:23 UTC
The term "transitional fossils" was invented by creationists for the soul purpose of saying science hasn't found any. Every species is "transitional"
2013-03-10 00:18:59 UTC
Then what are you turning into Marcus? Maybe you'll lay eggs eventually. Silly guy, evolution theory is fraud.
anon
2013-03-10 00:15:37 UTC
yea, suddenly they appeared on YA march 9th 2013


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...