Comments & Feedback

You're my hero :) Wristwatches... w t f

— A. Gish

Hi Velox:

You made a lot of claims about fossils.

Actually, I will bet you can't show one transitional fossil that illustrates the intermediate steps that are necessary under the regime of random mutation and natural selection. (That's why the charge against Evolution remains valid.)

You have fossils, perhaps, showing variations in finished product species. Like Darwin's finches -- all of the finches were fully functional, working species -- none were in the transitional mutational stage.

Recall the claim that reptiles evolved to birds? Then Archaeopteryx is offered as a transitional fossil? It is not transitional in the sense required to confirm the neo-Darwinian model.

You need to have fossils of the intermediate transitions. As mutation is random, not planned, you need to have fossils of reptiles with one wing, or half wings, or three wings. (And not really completed wings, but wings that are dorky and malformed and worthless). Because, under the neo-Darwinian model, you have to have all of the false starts, which made up a population (as I think you later assert), all of whom had the modifications in their wings that were only partial. (Mutation does not create fully functioning wings from fully functioning legs in just one generation.)

There must be these partial, dorky, malformed wing like structures attached to reptiles in the fossil record. There had to be *millions* of such individuals living, so that natural selection could "select" the most fit of these, and for the individuals to find one another to mate and reproduce others like them, who at some point in the generations, might undergo further mutation in a direction that moved the winglike structure closer to a functioning wing.

But you don't have these kinds of fossils -- otherwise, the Encyclopedia of Evolution (for example) would show them. It doesn't -- I looked.

Even when I was a raving atheist, I could not believe that neo-Darwinian model. The evidence does not show the necessary millions of truly transitional forms.

In the 20th Century, billions of generations of fruit flies were irradiated, poisoned, etc., to produce mutations. This was not "random" mutation, this was planned mutation, with special efforts to make sure the mutated flies could survive and find one another to mate, etc. With all of that effort, the researchers never claimed a new species of fly was created. They never produced a race of 5 legged flies, for example, as some kind of transitional mutational stage.

You need a lot of mutations, and a lot of mutational missteps, to achieve the neo-Darwinian sequence. And you need such a sequence of mutations (including all the failed versions) for every substantive change that moved one species to another, or that added a major functional organ, limb or other feature. These transitions are not there; they aren't even partially there.

If a proposition lacks supporting evidence, then I don't feel impelled to believe it. Regrettably, many "scientists" and others refuse to see the obvious when it comes to the absence of transitional mutant fossils.

— Rick Dial

Leave a comment ...

As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.

Stop Tracking

Back To Top