(Lunar;55699)
The entirety of the quote which you provided - the one which talked about "mythicization by evolutionists" - is nowhere to be found in the Lisle & Grant article. It is, however, found verbatim and uncited on the darwinismrefuted.com site, with the Lisle & Grant article cited as a source for the one passage "The population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth." The claim that evolution did not occur in the Galapagos finches is
not anywhere to be found in the research of Grant, nor of any credible biologist, and in fact Peter and Rosemary Grant specifically argue that the Galapagos finches are a prime example of evolution.
So you are making me seem like the bad guy because someone else falsifies something? (Lunar;55699)
What is the alternative explanation for these transitional forms, exactly? That God has periodically been zapping new species onto the planet which just so happen to resemble intermediary forms between major classes of animals? How exactly does the creationist hypothesis account for this?
It's quite interesting you point this out actually. We see exactly what happens in the Genesis account....Genesis 1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit
after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.Genesis 1:21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,
after their kind, and every winged fowl
after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.Also very interesting to note that this (similarities between animals past and present) was written some 5000 years before the theory of evolution.Here are the rest of the
after kind phrases used
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/trans...fter+kind&t=KJV(Lunar;55699)
The creationist might reply that God simply created all of these forms, transitional and otherwise, at the beginning, and that the transitional fossils which we see today are simply
original species that have gone extinct. But if God created
all these forms at the beginning, and then some of them went extinct, then we would expect to find fossils of all kinds at equal frequency throughout history up until their extinction. And this is simply not the case. There is, for example, a specific period in which point we stop finding amphibian fossils - namely, the end of the Devonian period, which took place 416-359 million years ago. Unsurprisingly, the
tiktaalik fossils - the transitional form between fish and amphibians - date to 383 million years ago, smack in the middle of the Devonian period. This is no coincidence.
No they were not created all at the beginning. The species that we see now are roughly 12, 000 old give or take. That is why we do not see them in the geological record. Why 12, 000? Well, as we see in the creation account in Genesis God had to re-create everything because something happened to the earth or sun that everything on earth died and was flooded. There is actually evidence of mass extinction just a few thousand years ago but to no surprise it is widely ignored. Here is a link talking about the subject though.
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Pa.../chapter10.htmlFurthermore, if a comet destroyed the dinosaurs why did species
evolve from them?