The Fossil Ida Is An Assault On A Gullible Public
Posted: Wednesday, May 20, 2009
by Josh Greenberger
The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public. One fossil does not represent a transitional species any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They're simply aberrations of nature.
You'd need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you'd need many transitional aberrations that couldn't survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.
There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don't seem to drastically effect the course of the species.
Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.
Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms. Perhaps Ida was such a species. But evidence of evolution? There's absolutely nothing to indicate that.
Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.
by JoshGreenberger.com
Author of "Human Intelligence Gone Ape" - amazon.com
This Article has been viewed 238 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Great article Josh. They, as usual, will see that this one gets into college biology textbooks as factual evidence. Then later, when it's been proven not a "missing link", they'll admit it isn't but they'll continue to leave it in the books. Most of them know better, they just will not accept a supernatural power.You're absolutely correct.
Thanks for taking the time out to leave a message.
Gullible? Really or are YOU looking for them?Like humans are deformed apes? Ever seen a dog without hair? Ugly right! So what do apes think of us really. Unbelievable BS you are preaching here (& I mean preaching). In case of this one-off, the one-off had to have a mom & dad. It could not have been a baby due to the digestive area showing signs of plant matter. If it had not been weened yet there would have been no plant matter there to be found. So mom & dad actually took the time raising their child (which generally in nature does not occur with deformed offspring). Yes Josh you are most definately a creationist/design man. I'd love to kick some more against this bucket but you'll probably edit this out & thusly I cannot be bothered to waste my time.Why on earth would I delete your stuff, I love it. What better examples can I get for the utter nonsense evolutionists talk about and what kind of foolishness "supports" evolution.
What on earth or you talking about? I need a cryptologist to make sense out of your comment.
Thank you.
This statement:"Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no evolution going on here" demonstrates that you do not understand what is meant by "evolution" in a scientific context.In evolution, no individual creature is required to undergo "drastic change" in the sense of "ending up as a very different type of creature to its parent(s).In fact evolution predicts that any creature that ends up drastically different to its parents is overwhelmingly likely to die without reproducing. Evolution is about *gradual* changes in *populations* over time.A "transitional" species or fossil is no different to any other kind - they are transitional only in the sense that they come between two other known points on an evolutionary line ."not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved"well no, because individual creatures do not evolve. Populations of creatures evolve.Where are those millions of transitional creatures? There"s no record of them in the fossil record. For every fossil of a known creature we should be finding many fossils of those that didn't work out and the transitional ones that did work out. They're not in the fossil record. Because they never existed. Because that slow and gradual version you talk about never happend. Please don't tell me about what evolution predicts. Tell me how sceince works and why we don't find any proof of what evolution predicts. Ida represents scientists' imagination, not evolution."Where are those millions of transitional creatures? Theres no record of them in the fossil record"
Almost every fossil ever found is transitional.
"For every fossil of a known creature we should be finding many fossils of those that didn't work out and the transitional ones that did work out"
All fossils of species that don't have surviving descendants today are fossils of "those that didn't work out"
.
Evolution leads us to expect to see very few "freaks" in the fossil record because "freaks" are one-offs and therefore inevitably far less numerous than non-freaks (who prosper and multiply). Evolution predicts gradual changes over time, and that is precisely what we see in the fossil record.
Given the age of a particular strata of rock, evolutionary science can give accurate predictions about the kind of fossils it may contain. There's no fossil rabbits in Pre-Cambrian rock for example. Find just one, and you will have demonstrated current evolutionary models as being flat-out wrong. That's all it would take to bring it down.
"Please don't tell me about what evolution predicts. "
Why not?
"Tell me how sceince works and why we don't find any proof of what evolution predicts"
Science works by using reason to find the best explanation of the facts from observed reality
The scientific theory of evolution is entirely based on observed facts from reality, which is why it fits them so neatly.
As new facts come in, scientific models are revised as necessary, and therefore they continue to fit the facts. This is why evolution science has come a long way since Darwin, even though he got most of the basics right.
If a particular model of evolution made predictions that turned out to be incompatible with the facts (evidence) then that model would be rejected or revised."Where are those millions of transitional creatures? Theres no record of them in the fossil record"
Almost every fossil ever found is transitional.
---
This answer is so dishonest it's mindboggling.
No, not every fossil ever found is transitional. This just an outright fabrication.
And of the ones that do seem to be, very few are of the same alleged transition.
What are you talking about?Almost every fossil ever found is transitional.
"This answer is so dishonest it's mindboggling. "
It's not disonest at all. Even a quick look at the wikipedia entry for "transitional fossil" should help you understand what transitional means in an evolutionary context (plus I explained the particular definition I was using previously):
"According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition"
There are more restrictive definitions of "transitional fossil", by which fewer fossils (although still a very large number) would be classed as transitional:
"Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight"
However these variations in definition are purely semantic - they don't present a problem for evolution, and don't prevent fossil evidence from supporting it.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.