Apr 132006
 

Casey makes this excellent observation at EN&V.

I love it when new “missing links” are discovered, because it’s then–and only then–that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question.

Authority Jennifer Clack even admits that before finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was “frustratingly wide”:

    “It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1).”
    (Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, “A firm step from water to land,” Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)

For the religious Darwinists it doesn’t matter what the evidence is, Darwinian evolution happened so all evidence must be distorted to support that fact. As the famed Professor Richard Dawkins said,

it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a “single fossil”–one bit of data–constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry–multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion. We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process. The convoluted Darwinian deception marches on.

Darwinian evolution works best when it hides behind a hodge-podge of equivocations. As in Dawkins’s statement that it is not that one line of evidence is so convincing but if you add all the different inconclusive and misleading evidence together, then it becomes fact. In other words, zero times 10,000 = 10,000, Dawkins’s new math.

There is also this famed FAQ by Kathleen Hunt on talkorigins.

Creationists often state categorically that “there are no transitional fossils”. As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the “chain of genera” type and the “species-to-species transition” type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you.”

This is Darwinian Fizzbin at it’s best. What Hunt and other religious Darwinists are so adept at doing is take minute changes over time and make leaps of faith to macro changes. Or what Hunt calls abundant transitional fossils of “species-to-species transition” ,(which are really variations in species, see here and here) “general lineage” and leaps of faith crossovers.

  One Response to “Does Darwinism Need Another Missing Link?”

  1. […] What I love about Darwinists is that every once in awhile you get something delicious like the ones that I’ve blogged about here, here and here. This latest morsel comes from Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh(credit to Dembski @ UD for the find). According to this article, Schwartz thinks that “Darwin was wrong, and his modern-day adherents perpetuate his mistakes” . […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.