What About Transitional Fossils? | The Creation Podcast: Episode 37
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Transitional fossils supposedly contain evidence of one kind of creature morphing into another, and purportedly provide proof for evolution. But is that proof so conclusive? Do fossils with distinct transitional features even exist?
ICR paleobiochemist Dr. Brian Thomas and host Ivana Semidey review the most commonly referenced "transitional fossils" and see if they display the changes required for evolution to be true.
Related resource: Adam or Apes | Get the DVD here: store.icr.org/adam-or-apes.html
#Science #Evolution #TheCreationPodcast
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on CZcams for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/
Thank you Team ICR, Ivana, and specially Dr. Brian for this long awaited podcast. We look forward to more such content.
Thanks for listening! There will definitely be more.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
@@icrscienceGod said he would send a great delusion upon the earth. I feel that's why He even made things appear the way they do in nature. Apes, for example, appear similar enough to give evolutionists the 'validation' for their theory. They have 'a gun' (evolutionary theory) and God gave them 'paper bullets' (false hopes).
@@devinnorsworthy9154 What for? Why don't you just accept that evolution is the truth?
@twosheds1749 evolution is FAR from the truth and there's actually no proof of it.
*_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_* (Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)
Well said, may I suggest having some pictures for visual aids to help accentuate these great questions and answers. Thank you for this.
Hoatzin birds have claws on their wings. Several kinds of birds like Greylag Geese and penguins have tooth like structures. Archaeopteryx was just a unique kind of bird.
Claws on wings is not a transitional feature, it’s fully formed.
@deepwaters2334
You are correct hoatzin birds do have claws on their wings but the thing is they have claws in their infancy, once they grow up they loose their claws archeopteryx on the other hand most likely had it's claws all through their life. Notice how you said tooth like, that's like calling the serrated part of a toucan's beak teeth, true teeth are boney, archeopteryx had true teeth.
@@isaiahwilliams3515 It just goes to show true birds can have features not often considered avian.
@deepwaters2334
If you don't mind me asking what is your position on this topic do you believe birds are dinosaurs?
@@isaiahwilliams3515 Obviously they are different created kinds; it is that simple.
In the latest Jurassic Park movie, they showed dinosaurs with feathered wings! Can't even watch a movie without the evolution story telling. Sad because of all the children being indoctrinated 😢
It's a shame, isn't it?
You are right, there is almost no film or documentary in the media or film world that does not contain an evolution theory.
People are inundated with self-made truths, it is exactly like fascism that wants to force an opinion on us.
Very bad for young people who have been indoctrinated with lies for their lives and they will never look for the truth again.
Kinda the point of movies
You expected a movie called JURASSIC PARK to not talk about evolution? The whole concept of the different period (jurassic and the others) came from evolution
Well, I think that most of these dinosaurs does not look like they showcase them to be.
Look at an elephant skull. Nobody would put huge flappy ears and a trunk on it if they never have seen an elephant before.
Koala skeleton. Looks like a cat or dog breed. Would make it long. Koalas are fat and cuddly.
I am sorry. But the dinosaurs we see in movies and stands... they ptobably never looked like that.
As one of my students said in one of our digressions when we should have been studying Japanese syntax: "Missing link?? Missing chain more like."
Why is the evolution of genes more of a mystery to you than the evolution of language?
@@wooddoc5956 Genes devolve...When Dawkins was asked if he could give one example of a mutation that added information to a species genome ...he could not. Mutations cause the loss of information...not expression of additional information ...need if evolution were true.
@@alantasman8273 Read about the evolution of tricolor vision. How about the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Arctic ice fish?
What about gain of function research in viruses?
You need to read something besides the Bible.
@@wooddoc5956 Again, variation limited to a species DNA information is not at issue. That fish does not become a frog or dog. It stays a fish. Again...mutations do not lead to information being added to species genome. Again, mutations result in the loss of information...they devolve. Again, there are no transitional fossils and Macro Evolution has never been seen in nature.
@@wooddoc5956 Variation within a species DNA limitations is not in dispute. The fish still remains a fish...it has never been observed to be turning into a frog. Please show me an instance were a mutation has added information to a species genome making it a different species. A scientist that has bread bacteria for decades,equating to millions of years of reproduction said he could find no evidence of evolution in his study. Why is that?
Could the Institute for Creation Research please do a video on HOW Noah might have built the ark, how he could have managed to collect a pair of every kind of animal and install them in the ark with enough of the appropriate food for each species, to last for 40 days?
" ..HOW Noah might have built the ark, how he could ... That's all told in the Bible. Noah lived 600 years before the Flood happened, so he had more than enough time to build the Ark with his sons. Most probably he also had hired workers. Noah did not have to collect a pair of every kind of those 'land animals breathing through nostrils' mentioned in Bible, because God took care of that. The omnipotent herder ... The continents were not yet formed, so on the Pangaia there was no need to cross any sea. Food for 40 days would've been a rather trivial job. All animals were either small by their species or small by their young age.
I was just considering this yesterday. One thing that would make a lot of sense is to take two very young of each kind. They would take less space, eat less and be more fruitful post flood.
@@beestoe993 Even a year's drifting wouldn't become impossible since the sea was teeming with marine animals and jetsam must've been floating everywhere after the torrential rains and tsunamis. Food was abundant around. [Declared “the best survival book in a decade” by Outside Magazine, 438 Days is the true story of the man who survived fourteen months in a small boat drifting seven thousand miles across the Pacific Ocean.]
@@beestoe993 Also a good side note is that the ark would NOT have needed to hold all the species that we classify now, as many of them are of the same kind
there is a supernatural God in the bible, and it tells us that he brought the animals to Noah.
Love these podcasts. Super helpful information.
Glad you like them!
“Imagination is not evidence” - very important point to remember
Indeed! Just like wearing a white coat doesn't grant some magical ability of always being right and knowledgeable, as some might lead on to believe. If imagination was evidence, toddlers should be writing textbooks (likely sponsored by Crayola *LOL*)
Just a story in a book is no evidence.
@georg7120 Can you prove anything in said book wrong?
I would also believe you think nothing created everything ( Big bang)?
Imagination is never lacking amongst Creationists.
@@82ndAirbornesoldierofchrist It's easy, there are two genealogies of Joseph in the gospels, one of them must be wrong.
Every textbook that teaches evolution should be required to contain a disclaimer stating that evolution is a theory and not fact. These texts should also state that as of publication of that text, no genuine, indisputable transitional fossils exist to support this theory.
That is not correct, biological evolution is a fact supported with incontrovertible evidence. Please look up the scientific definition of theory, it differs from the colloquial usage. The scientific theories such as gravity, germ, cell, atomic , evolution, etc. are all facts. Wrong again, we have hundreds of genuine transitional fossils that support it. Your sources are not correct.....
Then how else would they scientifically back racism? There has to be a group of humans who are closest to their primitive ancestors because nothing evolves at the same rate. Can you guess which group is closer to the primitive ancestors and which group is evolutionarily more advanced? Give you a hint, Darwin mentioned it.
@@MastaE2288Wow, it must bother you to know that so many of that group are smarter than you are.
Super interesting
Super funny - at least if you have some education.
Super interesting and also super logical unlike the evolution stories.
Transitional fossils lol
They have nothing. Just a bunch of mismatched bones and dreams.
Correct. They collect a jumble of bones and arrange them as they want. It isn't scientific at all.
Very profound and faith affirming testimony. Thanks for sharing this interview.
Great job defining terms, Dr. Thomas! We can have better discussions when we define what transitional really means to different scientists.
Archaeopteryx is interesting to say the least
Charles Darwin: *_"(Since) innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Origin of Species, p. 162. "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Origin of Species, p. 293._*
@@mattbrook-lee7732 "Unlike your bible things have moved on since he wrote that." - Since Darwin's time, the gaps in the fossil record have grown wider than ever.
The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. Evolutionist Stephen J Gould said: ‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’ [ Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119-130 (p.127), 1980. ]
Evolution has been empirically tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that evolution does not happen. In a long test of 72 000 generations of bacteria the result was only more bacteria. The same goes with the fruit flies. During 100 years and thousands of generations of empirical tests simulating millions of years of mammalian evolution - no new life forms, no new body plans, no new species … No evolution, only intraspecific variation by the organism’s own genes.
I'll also note that evolutionary theory is all but dead as discussed at the Royal Society's conference "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" in London in November 2016.
Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller said there, “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks. [However] It has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms (new body plans) of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose.
Source - evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/
It's great that in the Bible things have not moved on like in the naturalist science which makes continuous erroneous conclusions. All reliable scientific discoveries point towards the truths that Bible already has.
This is going to be interesting...
Artist impression has a lot to answer for
Everyone here needs to watch some Forrest valkai and learn something
"Everyone here needs to watch some Forrest valkai and learn something" - Forrest Valkai should first study more of genetics, thermodynamics and information science. Then we'll consider watching.
@@jounisuninen if you actually watched him im sure you'd see he knows his stuff pretty well and isn't just making shit up like some other people
@@jounisuninen Do you even know who he's talking about??.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
*** if you doubt or not believe what science say, the only way is for you is to investigate it yourself and publish waiting for critical reactions.***
Typical creationistic line of argumentation: Take a very old quote out of context and then claim: Because it proves evolution is wrong creationism must be true. More than one fallacy here.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 "Typical creationistic line of argumentation: Take a very old quote out of context" - That's Darwin's own words, not out of context. Today we have less and less evidence for the assumption that any single species would've changed.
@@jounisuninen
If you lie, you should lie more convincingly, Otherwise you only sound like any other moronic creationist. The quote is out of context.
Ape skull fragments + human skull fragments + human tools in a pit could point to something else having killed an ape and a human with or without tools. And, yes, the flood or similar event could have jumbled bones and other objects and landed them all in the same spot. In fact, the latter seems most likely if all they found were skull fragments and not the entire skeletons.
What we need is a comparative study of variation of heads across animal and human species.
Well, Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do. Wow.
@@wooddoc5956 According to the latest fashion in science, Neanderthal were Homo Sapiens just like us.
You should show pictures of all this stuff you're talking about.
Hilarious.
“Some evolutionary biologists disagree about how evolution happens, therefore evolution doesn’t happen!”
Priceless😂😂
The sad thing is that creationists´ gullible audience accepts each and every nonsense.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 - yeah, unfortunately our educational systems are not good at teaching critical thinking and skepticism. Thus conspiracy thinking and superstitions abound in the US.
Read about the scientist who has been breeding bacteria for decades ...essentially recording millions of generations of evolutionary change...oh but wait, he found that those bacteria were still bacteria...no evolution at all had taken place. He is ready to step down from his experiment of over twenty years and turn it over to someone else interested in pursuing his research. Sounds like you might be the perfect candidate to continue searching for evolutionary links that aren't there.
Perhaps better say that 'since evolutionary biologists disagree about how evolution happens, it is impossible to prove it has happened at all”.
A scientific fact:
"A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science Question: How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once!
Evolution has been tested innumerable times with tens of thousands generations of test organisms. Still every empirical test has proved that evolution does not happen. No new life forms, no new body plans, no new species … Read: No evolution, only intraspecific variation aka "micro evolution" which really is no evolution at all.
What did he say that was false? Many scientists today are in agreement that evolution is dead.
This was an awesome interview and video. Keep them coming!
Will do!
Great point about he foreman magnum!
"It's so fragmentary, you can't draw any conclusions from it."
No, but they can draw! And they do. And that it the "proof" we are presented with. 😢
Duh🙃
Charles Darwin tells in his evolution theory what evolution means: "All life on Earth stems from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago." - Incredibly, modern evolutionists still hang on this pseudo science.
If Darwin's theory was true, evolution would have needed an endless succession of new genes for new body plans. But today we know through empirical tests that new body plans never emerge because no species' genes allow limitless changes. They allow only adaptive variations within species. Genes enable superficial adaptations and even production of subspecies. Subspecies are not new species. The subspecies are always specialized through a loss of some genes in their genome. Still they have the same body plan with their stem species. Subspecies are just specialized variations and they can never evolve to a new taxonomic genus or family.
Evolution is a dead theory. It was and is based on atheism. There is no science in it. It is still taught in schools only because the evolutionist researchers want to keep their scholarships and not lose their face.
People just can’t say “I don’t know.” Egos are too big, so they have to create a theory and preach it as fact.
I would like to hear a Creationist take on the Archeopteryx teeth.
Yes they are bird’s teeth. Nothing to do with transitions.
True bird fossils have been found that are supposedly millions of years older than those of archeopteryx.
No modern birds have teeth. But, there is an entire class of extinct birds that had teeth, the pelagornithids. They were true birds. They weren't "transitional forms". Variation doesn't imply transition unless you insist it must.
*_"There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original."_* --- Rod Dacanay
@@mattbrook-lee7732 At least his text is right if nobody can show examples where one life form has converted to a different life form by changes in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans do not reside within the DNA and this claim should be empirically disproved if we want evolution be a proven fact. No amount of random mutation of DNA can produce a new organism with a different body plan from the original and this indeed has been proven through empirical tests where even 72 000 generations of test organisms were used.
@@mattbrook-lee7732 many viruses can go in both animal and human hosts.
@@jounisuninen the only mutations we’ve make an organism devolve if anything not evolve. Cancer is a mutation, sickle cell is a mutation. So only mutations we’ve actually ever seen have gone the other way not the way of evolution.
*_”I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”_* (Colin Patterson FRS, British paleontologist, Natural History Museum)
The flying monkeys of the wizard of Oz are better transitions forms than most of these fossils.
😂
The transition from apes to birds!
😂
‘Just a Bird’ is not contrary to ‘transitional form’. It depends on the definition of ‘Bird’.
If you do not use the beak, the stumpy tail, the lack of teeth as adult, and a number of other traits as part of the definition of a Bird, you could say that Archaeopteryx is a Bird.
His definition of ‘transitional’: Having transitional traits, is partly OK, except that he seems to overlook the possibility that a fossil species could be transitional in some traits, have kept some of the traits of its ancestor, and already have a other traits that look like its descendants. Evolution doesn’t exclude that at all.
Apart from that Archaeopteryx IS transitional according to his definition in the skeleton of its forelimbs, as the fusion of the bones in not as pronounced as it is in modern Birds.
Transitional wings have been found in many other fossil species.
Gould’s and Eldredge’s ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ is NOT about what he is talking about. It is about speciation. That is from one species to its immediate descended species. So either he doesn’t know what he is talking about, or he is lying.
His story of Homo habilis as based on an Ape-skull is strange. Other creationists simply place H. habilis in the Human kind (Ref 1).
The foramen magnum of Australopithecus (not in Lucy, as it is not preserved) is in somewhat intermediate between Chimps and modern Humans, so it is exactly what he is asking for.
Australopithecus feet have been found. They have been shown to have features indicating upright walking.
When talking about ‘according to ‘kind’, wouldn’t it be reasonable to make a comment on the fact that the majority of fossils do NOT fit into any ‘kind’ living today! This is especially true the older the fossils are thought to be.
Ref 1: answersresearchjournal.org/human-holobaramin/
So many creatures of 4500 years ago are all extinct.
@@masada2828 the earth 🌎 is older.
Thanks for that but as has been said it is easier to fool these folks than convince them that they have been fooled. Sad to think how many curious minds have been wasted on this stuff.
Awesome
"You have to understand that first there is speculation, then there is wild speculation, and then there is cosmology/biology etc." M. Harris
Evolution - turtles 🐢 all the way down...the problem of infinite regress.
Amazing
The definition of a transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. So by definition archeopteryx is a transitional fossil
***scientists are scientists because they like to know things, if you wont to know, become a scientist, it is the only way if you doubt.***
Thank you for the clear and simplified explanation of claimed transitional fossils!! Your videos are so encouraging and edifying!
Beautiful work ICR
What creature is transitioning today? If Evolution happened in the past it wouldn't have stopped it would be ongoing
Orangutangs use tools. Reeds as straws. There are fire apes who make fires.
The evolution of the moth.
Scientist on the BBC in the 70's: consequent to the Clean Air Act 1956 the bark of the ubiquitous plane trees became lighter, thus turning the tables on the vulnerability of the lighter moth and darker moth to predators, eventually the lighter ones becoming more prolific. Proof of evolution.
My question: what is the lighter moth evolving into? Answer: it isn't. It's a moth. It's still 'just' a moth.
They confuse evolution with adaptation but, as u say, it is still a moth.
There were already both dark and light colored moths before this supposed evolution.
It isn’t the light colored moth that is evolving it is the moth population as a whole. This case is an example of an environmental pressure altering the gene pool of a population. Subsequent generations will have a majority of light colored moth, and that trend will continue assuming that environmental pressure stays in place. Over of time the population will continue to change according the changing environmental pressures, so the genes expressed in the population can be very different after 100s 1000s or 1,000,000s of generations
@@davidforsythe1329 After as many generations as you like, they will still. be. moths.
@@davidforsythe1329 Whence would they get those 'very different genes'?
Mutations can't help:
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.]
Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.]
Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]
Science doesn't know any evolutionary beneficial mutations that could transform the body plan of any given organism i.e. to generate (macro)evolution. All known mutations are non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria, metabolic changes, color changes etc. These are devolution by destroyed genes, not evolution. This means mutations in fact can't play any role in evolution.
If mutations were source for evolution, DNA couldn't have the mechanism that eliminates ALL mutations it finds.
The "missing" link is God.
Actually its Christhood. let the mind that was in Jesus be in you.
So it's really about your feelings, and not anything to do with science.
@@JessicaSunlightFunny how one Jesus troll can't let another Jesus troll off the hook.
@@richtomlinson7090 It has everything to do with science as God put in his created universe all the fine tuning scientific laws that keep the universe functioning and held together.
So God creates a production line of souls to worship him for his generosity or suffer eternal hell if they don't. How wonderful.
Don't ask Ivana questions. She's the interviewer! 😅
It's better when the wings are entirely their own limbs aside 4 other limbs. >>;=) On a more serious note... things like transitional bone fragments, I have to wonder if there is even enough fragment there to fully determine what the creature looked like. That is something to keep in mind, because some of the "evidences" used lack enough body parts to properly recreate its form, so a lot of artistic liberalism is taken in building models (which would be fine if they were transparent about that fact). Another odd thing to me about evolution is say if fish were leaving lakes and taking to the land, why would they give up/lose their gills instead of holding onto the ability to travel in two biomes and breath in both.
If evolution is a continual process that is assumed to yet be continuing, there should be an array of transitional creatures alive today; it's a little fishy that modern day seems to look complete/done instead of still "in the works". And what about life that is inter-kingdom (ie. a coniferus fungus or a blossumfish)? You sure never see fossils of anything like that.
1. Fish evolved on land because there was less competition and more food than in the water at the time. 2. all species are transitional, there were no half done animals walking around, they were all suited to live life in their environment until it changed in some way or they found a better niche and adapted. 3. We've got plenty of well preserved fossils to show what many creatures looked like including archaeopteryx
3. different species can't interbreed. Is that what you meant? Why would a fish breed with a blossom.
Watch forrest valkai he explains it all
@@forrest_ghost4410 Forrest Valkai passes all essential problems in his theories. Just like you do. Just like all evolutionists do.
You did not answer this question: "If fish were leaving lakes and taking to the land, why would they give up/lose their gills instead of holding onto the ability to travel in two biomes and breath in both? " - You can't answer because this question contains too much truth to be solved by the evolution theory.
"all species are transitional, there were no half done animals walking around, they were all suited to live life in their environment until it changed in some way or they found a better niche and adapted." - You again can not explain why we do not see any signs of those transitional life forms. Fish is definitely different from a land animal.
You note that "we've got plenty of well preserved fossils to show what many creatures looked like including archaeopteryx" - Again you evade the question "what proves that archaeopteryx would've been a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds".
You say "different species can't interbreed". Of course they can't ... That's why fish never could have had genes of a land animal, to become a land animal.
@@jounisuninen well these aren't imposible groundbreaking questions.
Fish came on land because there was more food and less competition on land because as far as I know it was just plants and insects at that time, but maybe others did stay in between like other fish today
There are transitional fossils like tiktaalik who shares features from lobe fined fish like eusthenopteron (scales, fins, gills) and tetrapods like acantheosega (mobile neck, wrist Joints, weight supporting ribs) it also has limb bones, joints and ear region in between fish and tetrapod.
Archaeopteryx shows features that are both dino like and bird like and even if they're not a direct ancestor there are other dino-like bird fossils.
Also Many species have vestigial structures that show evidence of things changing like human tailbone, wisdom teeth because our heads were bigger, remnants of that third eye most animals have, whale hip and pelvis bone ect.
I recommend moth light media, pbs eons or gutsick gibbons for better info because I'm not an expert but it's real fascinating when you actually dive into it
Austin Powers has a Fwing
If creationism is right then the world is 6500 years old and there should be NO FOSSILS
The simple fact that fossils exist debunks this idea
The Noahic Flood caused fossils to form everywhere from dead biomass . Fossils have even been found at the summit of Mt Everest.
@@jayrose8638 From you comment, your knowledge of fossil formulation and where fossils are found in the geologic record appear limited. You might want to do some study.
"If creationism is right then the world is 6500 years old and there should be NO FOSSILS" - Not true ... Fossilization can happen much quicker than you think.
Given perfect conditions it can happen in a couple of hours if not minutes like in the case of fossilized fish found in the Santana Formation in Brazil. These are believed by some experts to have been killed by fossilization process that is they were fossilized alive. Note they are very small fish. There's also artificial fossilization of wood and other stuff created by humans which is also fast.
A plant or animal that is buried in mud, silt or other protective substances very shortly after death is much more likely to be preserved as a fossil. Read of Noah's Flood 4500 years ago.
I would like a couple of “fwings.” 😂
I think the minotaur and ganesh are examples of transitional forms, don't you?
Surely we should be seeing the apes in their various forms of evolving/transitioning
Never mind transitional forms in the fossil record - where are the transitional fossils today? Those so-called transitional forms were once living and doing what living things do. If evolution is true, we should be seeing transitional forms in the present. We don't. Darwin posed that very question in his famous book but had no answer.
This is a terminally daft remark, because since species evolve all the time, every species is transitional between what went before and what will come after. Why is it creationists can't figure the obvious? And there are plenty of transitional fossils, it's just creationist haven't the wit to see them as such.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki1. Impersonal origins is rationally absurd.
2. Evolution is predicated upon impersonal origins.
3. Evolution is rationally absurd.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki there are no transitional fossils merely fossils that are inflamed to be transitional but they do not hold up to honest scrutiny
@Leszek Rzepecki how do entire systems transition? Creatures with integrated systems that could not work if parts were not formed- you think it takes wit to describe the process? All you have is a bunch of suggestions and assumptions. Hand squiggles taught as fact. But you are gullible, so it stands to reason.
Jake
@@Leszek.Rzepecki do us a fevour mention just one
There are thousands of them.
why is the description of the video a blatant fallacy?
Human footprints.
I remember seeing a photo purportedly of human footprints in the Paluxy River basin that also had dinosaur footprints. Has that evidence/argument vanished from the scene?
destroyed I believe.
Thank you for demonstrating you don't know the first thing about evolution. All fossils are transitional.
Yes 👍,
What is a transitional fossil?
A transitional fossil is a fossil that has signs of accumulating gradual transformation from a species to another species. This means one fossil can never be a transitional fossil, unless it belongs to a chain of hundreds of fossils showing coherent gradual accumulating transformation. There is no such fossil chain found.
"Until that happens."
Keep waiting doubters! 🤗
The more missing fragments that you have the more "transitional" you can call it.
For evolution, the best evidence is the missing evidence.
“It was an ape all along. Awwww.” 😂
I wish to thank you for sharing this awesome ( What About Transitional Fossils ) Podcast # 37 video with me .
Her constant "mm-hmm" "mm-hmm" "mm-hmm" "mm-hmm" is driving me nuts.
Thanks for the episode ICR! Love it ☺️🙏 I remember the first time I heard anything about creationism was listening to one of your conferences in Dallas Texas in the '90s. Thanks for being a vital part of the body of Christ
Thanks for listening! Glad you're here with us.
Has no one seen "Transformers"
What's with all the poodle hate??? They are noble beasts, very intelligent and with great personalities! Gah! I've tackled Jason LIsle over this. Have some respect for a gorgeous part of God's creation. Blame the people who give them stupid haircuts.
One of the best anti-evolution videos ever… until the unfortunate Poodle bashing!
Couldn't be plainer...no transitional fossils. Thank you so much for your podcast. Praying peoples eyes are opened...😊 in Yashuas name I pray...amen
𓆏
Great content. Just a tip for what is otherwise a great interviewer: don't say "mmhmm" or anything else into the mic while the interviewee is talking. Maybe I'm the only one but I find it extremely distracting. Maybe just back away from the mic a bit?
The Theory of Evolution is a philosophy not a science.
it's against your religion, nothing more
*** if you believe it is alright no matter in what, but going into science to justify your believe is out of question, the only way for you is to became a scientist but do not try to answer questions of scientific nature with points of faith, it will not match and the opposite is also true. Science and Believe are 2 different things even with a different language, science has a very broad field, there are branches of science to study "religion", "politics","physics","biology", "computers", etc, etc ; IT IS A LIFE TIME OF RESEARCH. My advice to you is to concentrate your efforts in THEOLOGY, in general not only for your believing religion. GOOD LUCK.***
I think evolutionists have missing links in their thinking😅
There is clear difference between apes and humans. Apes have equal length arms and legs and brain sizes under 600cc. Human have unequal length arms and legs, making it difficult to walk on all fours, and brains over 800cc among others. I read a book a year ago by a forensic orthodontist from the 70s who got to x-ray some of the neanderthal skulls in Europe on a machine that fixed the skulls for measurement and comparison. His conclusion was that they were very old humans on level of 300 years due to growth patterns, as chin, brow and ears change position or grow due to pressure of eating over time. We can see this in facial features of elderly people that their brows, chins and ears grow thicker, longer and bigger respectfully especially among males. Half the book was kind of boring with charts and graphs, but he even explained why the brow grows because the chewing pressure is directed around the eyes to protect them by the cheekbones. He said his teacher even explained this compared to architecture as flying buttresses of the face. I think the book was called Buried Alive.
Smart man, he doesn't have enough faith to be an Atheist.
you making evolution synonymous with atheism is folly
Stephen J. Gould (Professor of paleontology from Harvard University): *_"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."_* Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Evolution = no need for god.😮😮
Did humans come from fish? No. However, humans and fish have a common ancestor that lived about 500 million years ago when fish first appeared. Humans didn't come along until much later, about 499 million years later. How long is 499 million years? About 6,700,000 human generations. Most humans can only count 10 or 15 generations back, so that common ancestor lived a long time ago. Are humans and fish related? Yes. All life on earth is related, but there were a lot of organisms that appeared and disappeared between that common fish andcestor and today's humans.
"However, humans and fish have a common ancestor that lived about 500 million years ago when fish first appeared." - And the evidence?
"Are humans and fish related?" - No evidence for it. If we were related, we would have similarities in our Gene Regulatory Network, as well as in the parts of DNA that coordinate body structures. But we have not. We also should have same orphan genes and same singletons. Instead fish have their own and humans have their own. The ends don't meet.
"All life on earth is related," - No it's not and you have no empirical evidence for your claim.
Even the human DNA and the chimp DNA comparison tells that we can't be related. Humans have the human genome, apes have the ape genome. Humans have the human orphan genes, apes have the ape orphan genes. So how could human be related to fish?
If evolution from an assumed man and ape common ancestor during the last 8-6 million years was true, the genetic difference between ape and man couldn’t now be more than 1%. A common ancestor would be impossible even then, because a 1% difference would mean 30 millions of DNA code letters. Mathematically taken, evolution would need hugely more time to close so large a genetic gap in a random process (assuming there was macro evolution in the first place).
The whole story of human-ape relationship is mindless, because the body plan of any given organism is in the ovum and it is implemented in the gastrulation phase of the embryo, controlled by the Hox genes. Hox genes have effectively invalidated all man's empirical tests to create (macro)evolution i.e. to change the body plan of an organism. Yet we've had tens of thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit flies for use in laboratories during the last 100 years. Result: No macro evolution.
Comparing the whole DNA of man and ape, and thus getting similarity percentages like 85% or 98 % only tells that all living organisms have many similar genes for their metabolism, energy producing systems etc. because we breath same air, drink same water, eat same food. The decisive differences are found in the DNA parts that code the body plan. In that DNA section the genetic difference between apes and man is huge.
There are big differences in the regulating sections of genes between humans and big primates. In the points where chromosomes reorganize DNA -sequences during sexual reproduction, there’s hardly any similarities. Also the Y-chromosomes are very different. In the humans they are much bigger and they contain genes that are not found in e.g. chimpanzee.
All living organisms have many building blocks of same material but the DNAs are different, orphan genes are different, gene regulatory networks are different etc. These tell of the different ancestral background. Fish being related to man is an an absurd hypothesis and of course impossible to prove.
I have yet to understand how anyone can believe in evolution. All the arguments I have heard have been refuted.
*_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
Evolutionist: No, God didn't do it. It was magic!
Evolution is supposed to happen at a very, very, very slow snail's pace. But there are no traces of transitional forms. Okay... so abracadabra, wave a magic wand, invent a new phrase, 'punctuated equilibrium', hey presto, problem solved! Magic 😂
Under scrutiny, the evolution theory appears to be based on assumptions instead of scientific evidence.
The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living things, i.e. spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) has occurred against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The second assumption is that spontaneous unguided process produced immaterial information (DNA) from inanimate matter, while nobody’s got a clue how it could happen plus it is a mathematical impossibility.
The third assumption is that viruses, plants and animals are all interrelated even though their structure-forming parts of DNA are different and there is no scientifically proven mechanism to cross that border.
The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa (single-celled organisms) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled organisms) without anyone being able to empirically prove how it could happen.
The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phlya (organisms without a backbone) are interrelated, without binding empirical evidence.
The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates (animals with backbones), again without binding empirical evidence.
The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and reptiles to the birds and mammals, without science being able to explain a genetic mechanism for that kind of (macro)evolution.
The eighth assumption is that mutations can produce changes to the basic anatomic structure aka body plan of living organisms, while the theory of ”informational mutations” is against everything that is known of mutations.
The ninth assumption is that the missing transitional fossils do exist outside the evolutionist imagination.
Unless these evolutionary assumptions are proven true, evolution will remain a blind faith-based religion.
This maybe stupid, but, is or rather was. Evolution a once off effect because if it was a continuum we should still be witnessing evolution today.
Every time one of your kids has more kids than you....that's evolution.
@@wooddoc5956 "Every time one of your kids has more kids than you....that's evolution." - This is the level of education among evolutionists?
According to Wikipedia there's two different processes called "evolution" while neither of them is evolution in the Darwinian sense.
1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. (Wikipedia)
2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. (Wikipedia)
Point 1 is proven true, but it does not claim that new life forms appear from the existing species. Science has observed only intraspecific adaptive variation, never structurally new species that could lead to a new taxonomic genus, family, order, class etc. This adaptive variation is also called ”micro evolution”. In "micro evolution" no new genetic information is needed since all changes happen within a species' own genome (gene recombination).
Point 2 is a hypothesis which has never been scientifically proven. It is usually called ”evolution” or ”macro evolution”. It would need such new genetic information that is not found in the species' existing genome. This kind of "macro evolution" is fiction because there is no qualitatively new "free genetic information" to be found on our planet.
So we see that "micro evolution" and the fictional "macro evolution" are different processes. "Micro evolution" means intraspecific adaptive variation where its existing genes form recombinations. "Macro evolution" i.e. "Darwinian evolution" would need qualitatively new genes but all such genes are already fixed in other species' genomes.
That's why fish never could produce anything else than different fish, but never could gradually transform itself to a land animal.
There's transitional species that are alive today. And we have found plenty of transitional fossils, they are not even rare.
Mention one
What you just said is a complete lie. You should be ashamed.
Pokemon is not real bro.
Examples?
@@tatie7604 Basilosaurus and Dorudon.
Tiktaalik
Ceolacanths
Osteolepiform
Panderichthys
Acanthostega.
Obviously, because Bible says so.
Best evidence i heard till today!
It's the old, trust me Bro'seph.
Most of evolution is just storytelling.
I personally prefer believing in something that is NOT scientifically proven impossible (God) than believing in something that IS scientifically proven impossible (abiogenesis and universal common ancestor).
It's so obvious that God created the Universe. He also created us so that we may worship him so that we can enter heaven.
evolution really ought to be studied without getting into cosmology
μεταβατικα απολιθωματα