DoomYoshi wrote:Here is a well-written summary, while I wait for viceroy to give me definitions.
Please excuse the fact that I shortened the article a bit. If I wanted to I could also post articles but I am not. The Original Post on this thread is an article that I wrote based on my understanding of the theory of evolution, using my own words to describe what I know to be true and debunking what evolutionist use to present the theory of evolution as fact.
I did allude to an article and posted the link as well but that article was in support of my words. But it's cool that you posted this article because I can now proceed to dissect it apart and prove my point that what I am saying is the truth despite the fact that so called intellectual people refuse to see the evidence that evolution as a theory to explain why and how mankind is here, alive on this planet, today and for the origin of species as well, is only fiction at best.
DoomYoshi wrote:A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two.
The definition given in this article and perhaps even upheld by some "scientist" is not the same one that the creator and writer of "The Origin of Species," Charles Darwin, had in mind. Read carefully his own words from his own book...
Charles Darwin wrote:"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then 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. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)
Notice the wording, "Geology assuredly does not reveal ANY such..."
In other words, Darwin saw "NO" sign of "ANY" clue of "NOTHING" that even resembles an intermediate species. Of course in the article that you posted as your comment, it went on to say that intermediate species are all around us in every living creature we see but that is only a new and modern definition invented just recently because there are no intermediate species according to Darwinism, so some "scientist" have to make it up.
In 1999 however, Professor Steve Jones had an excellent opportunity to explain all of these new found thousands of intermediate species and transitional fossils all around us, in his book, "Almost Like a Whale." But he did not. What did he say instead...
Steve Jones wrote:Geology assuredly does not reveal ANY finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.”
(Professor Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
So in 1999, Professor Steve Jones came to the same conclusion that Darwin did 140 years earlier. There are no intermediate species to be found. If ever there was an opportunity to clear this up, it was right there and then, in his revised and extensive work of Darwin's writings. In his own book, "Almost Like a Whale," Professor Steve Jones could have put this issue to rest once and for all about the intermediate species. But he didn't because he knew better than that. He would have been criticized as a liar had he put that thousands of intermediate species have been found since Darwin's day when that is simply not the case or true.
DoomYoshi wrote:To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions.
The writer of this article could be alluding to the Horse Exhibit which I wrote about in my own article, stating that it is a complete fabrication. In support of that I posted the...
"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.
It has been found that every single discovery used has been fabricated or misrepresented and that is the truth. Take "Lucy" for example."In a recent study, Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s lower jaw bone is some kind of gorilla jaw bone. Other parts of the skeleton are just like the bones of knuckle-dragging, tree-climbing gorillas. Yet Lucy has been Evolutionism's poster child. Very creatively designed sculptures of Lucy appear in tax-funded museums, and these sculptures are hoaxes, not following the obvious ape-like bone structures, but rather dishonestly presenting Lucy as if she had human-like bone structures. This is typical Evolutionary flim-flam. Evolutionists fool themselves first because of their confirmation bias. Everything looks like part of the evolutionary dream, because or Evolutionism's presupposition.
And so I ask the question, Why do evolutionist need to lie?
Thousands of evidence of transitional fossils, or thousands of lies?
DoomYoshi wrote:The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
There is no misconception about the lack of transitional fossils perpetrated by "Logical thinking." Only when certain "scientist" feel the need to present evidence to support a foundationless (And I am using this word correctly) theory do we arrive at misconceptions such as this one. I am glad that you posted this article because Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of how some "scientist" purposely leave out certain facts in order to deceive the public and thus keep the people ignorant of true facts."Archaeopteryx lithographica was the name which geologist Sir Richard Owen gave in 1863 to one of the most unusual specimens which he was to acquire in his career as Curator of the British Museum of Natural History. It was indeed an irony that Owen, who was an opponent of Darwin's and espoused a kind neo-Platonic concept of nature with species as static archetypes, should be the person who described the creature which has come to be used as one of the prime examples of evolution... The jury is still out as to whether Archaeopteryx could simply glide from tree to tree, much like todays flying squirrels, or whether it was capable of true flight. In any event it seems that, even at best, Archaeopteryx was not a skilled aerialist."
(http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/environment/N ... teryx.html
I would add that the title of this article is...
Archaeopteryx - is this bird a fraud?
copyright Christopher Majka
all rights reserved. Reproduced from New Brunswick Naturalist, 1992
The article that you posted is dated May 1994. Two years after the excerpt that I posted. You think perhaps that Stephen Jay Gould of Natural History just missed that? Hmmm??? I wonder?
DoomYoshi wrote:Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
So in other words what we have here is an "Evolving" theory of the theory of evolution. Darwin says one thing and because it can't be proven, it's altered so that it seems more plausible of an explanation if changed slightly. But which is it then? Does evolution occur gradually over millions of years, or can we choose and pick our own flavor of evolution? "I like mine to be Orange/Mango with the mint frosting on top." LOL.
Because apparently now we can choose how evolution happens. It either takes millions of years of gradual changes or as stated above, "it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species
Notice the words, "It was Proposed!" The very article admits it's own alteration to the theory of evolution itself. What more need I say?
In the very same article that you posted, there are thousands of transitional species and at the same time in the "New Theory," it's proposed in order to explain the "relative rarity of transitional forms." Which is it then? Are there many trasitional forms or few? If scientist can't agree in the very same article written, then how are we to believe them?
DoomYoshi wrote:"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
I continue to maintain as I stated in my Original Post...
 But until not too recently the evolution of the horse has been shown for what it really is. A cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public for the advancement of monetary funds. I see no other way to describe a situation where scientist purposely mislead and defraud the public trust with false evidence to support the theory of evolution that can not be supported or proven. Where no evidence can be found it must be made up or invented. But why?
And finally, not in my words..."Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."
—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.