I do not believe that you have shown us any transitional fossils. What I see is a handful of man and ape fossils which have similar physical characteristics and structure. They both have two legs, two arms , one head and so on. Evolutionary conjecture that these physical similarities constitute ancestry is a huge leap of faith, and as I will show, some of your scientist colleagues do not share your opinions. Evolutionists approach fossils with the pre-conceived notion that since evolution is true, the fossils must be lined up in a way that shows progression. We must recognize the fact that when we see drawings of ape to man evolution that the artists are told how to draw the fossil finds. They are told to draw maybe a little more sloping forehead even though the cranium of the actual find was larger or maybe told to draw hair all over the body etc. Don’t believe me? Just look up “ Nebraska Man”. He was pictured in the ape to man progression from the find of a single tooth. It turns out that the tooth came from a pig. This is just one example of how far off the fossil interpretations of evolutionary biologists get in their zeal to support the theory. Other examples of evolutionary presentations that turned out to be fraudulent include, Piltdown Man, the Miller/Urey experiments, vestigial organs, and the Peppered Moths. Add to this that there are no transitional forms between microscopic organisms to invertebrates or from invertebrates to vertebrates and no fossils showing what apes evolved from.did answer your question by providing two examples of transitional fossils. But yet again you dodge the question: Where have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?
Obviously the answer is, you've not looked anywhere, and that's why you refuse to answer the question.
Oh, is it? Then why did a Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, Dr. Charles Oxnard say; "The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been."Except for the nearly complete skeletons of organisms that have a mixture of human and primitive primate characteristics. So yet again, another one of your claims is factually wrong.
His conclusion, "The australopithecines are unique.”
My dictionary says “image” is; 1.a physical likeness of a person, animal or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.So do you believe "made in God's image" refers to physical characteristics? If so, do you believe God has a penis?
Seems straightforward to me, what do you think image means? As for the last part of your quote, I believe that only a very irreverent person would go there. If you wish to speculate on what private body parts God does and does not possess then you will have to discuss it with someone else.
Please be more specific, i.e. give an example of the cases you are talking about.So your answer to any genetic evidence for common descent is "God just made it that way". How do you account for genetic similarities even in cases of functional redundancy?
Where are the scales? You present a fossil that has no feathers and a fossil that has feathers and no scales. Where is the transition? Furthermore you cannot provide a plausible explanation of just how environmental pressures could cause such an adaptation. It would also seem that there are other biologists that do not share your opinions. Larry D. Martin served as a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a curator in vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas. He authored more than 170 scientific papers in the most prestigious journals and books, and was the recipient of numerous research grants from the National Science Foundation, National Geographic, and NASA. This is what he had to say about reptile to bird evolution “To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.” Also Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, one of the worlds foremost ornithologists and an evolutionist, says this about the subject; “Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.”In 123 you said, "A kind is a type of animal like a horse, a dog or a cat". Do you honestly think that's a useful definition? If so, what "kind" is Caudipteryx?
And you again dodge the same question. Does that specimen display a mosaic of bird and reptile features? Isn't that exactly what we would expect a transitional fossil to show?
And you dodge yet another question, you have constantly attacked Behe but you have yet to offer a rebuttal to irreducible complexity. Tell us please what is not factual about it.What about it is "factual"?
I have, by showing where Gould lamented creationists like you trying to use his quotes to make it seem as if he believed transitional fossils don't exist, even though he believed they are "abundant".
Perhaps you could be so kind as the post the quote in the context of the paragraphs before and after and explain how it is out of context.
As a matter of fact, I led this young man to the Lord and he is an active soul-winner for Christ today. No evolution required. Why would God, the supreme supernatural creator of the universe, need a process as clumsy as evolution?And you didn't correct him on that? Too bad it was you he ended up talking to, rather than the millions of Christians who have no problem at all with evolution.
Have a Blessed Day,
Fred Lamm