Blog

by Steve Risner

In my last post, we started a brief look at transition fossils—fondly called “missing links” because they are completely absent from the fossil record and would allegedly bridge the gaps between different known species. The trouble here is that the fossil record should be full of “missing links,” but it's entirely void of them. The fossil record is, in fact, full of complex organisms that appear to have no “primative” ancestors. Over the years, many found “missing links” have been ranted about. These are nearly always premature and later removed from the list, or they're still called transitional between groups of organisms even though they've been thoroughly shown to be nothing of the sort. I'd like to take a look at a few of those to demonstrate the lack of scrutiny and over-zealous nature of evolutionists when it comes to “missing links.”

If you've spent any time investigating evolution, you've probably heard of Tiktaalik—the famous “fishapod.” Not only was this celebrated as a link between fish and land animals (tetrapods) but it was also claimed as a successful prediction of the theory. They claim it was said that an ancestor that first was able to leave the water and walk on land should be found in the geologic column around the age of 400 million years (give or take, you know). This lobe-finned fish (which is exactly how it's described by many sources) allegedly had the ability to leave the water for periods of time, using its fins to sort of ambulate from one pond or stream to another. Let's keep in mind that there are fish here and now that can move across land for short periods. The snakehead, walking catfish, and climbing perch are just a few examples of these fish. So even if Tiktaalik was able to do this, it's nothing really that interesting and certainly no kind of “proof” for fish to amphibian evolution. There are several reasons to be skeptical that this fish is what they claim it is. First and foremost, evidence has been found, in accordance with deep time assumptions, that an animal was already walking in the mud with a coordinated four-limbed gait (probably like a lizard) nearly 9 million years before Tiktaalik. Now, I don't agree with the dates at all, but evolutionists do and this blows Tiktaalik out of the water. However, it is STILL touted as a great victory for evolutionary thinking even though it is nothing of the sort. This isn't the only issue for Tiktaalik. There are numerous anatomical features it doesn't have that it would require for land walking. Its fins are wrong. Its pelvis is wrong. It was clearly a fish (and is called as much by evolutionists). If anyone suggests to you that this fish is some sort of transition, don't trust them. They're either misinformed or trying to mislead you. Tiktaalik is not a transition fossil of any kind.

What about the “frogamander," the alleged transition between frogs and salamanders? This one is an interesting guy. It demonstrates an all-too-common tactic used by evolutionists (and the media) when it comes to over reporting a find. It was claimed that this “elderly frog” was a nearly perfectly complete specimen. Although the fossil was described as “almost perfectly complete,” we find the description as claiming it was found upside-down and without any legs. How could they make adequate comparisons between frogs and salamanders if the single specimen they have has no legs and is only visible from the belly side? You got me. Of course, artists' depictions of this little guy are fully half frog and half salamander. However, the nice bit of honesty, as reported by John Bolt, curator for fossil amphibians and reptiles at The Field Museum in Chicago, is that this organism seems to resemble modern amphibians—aka it shows no signs of being more primitive or less sophisticated than modern amphibians. With a single specimen and only about 2/3 or so of it, it's hard to believe anyone with integrity would suggest this is a transitional organism, an intermediate, or a “missing link.” There's just not enough information to make any such statements.

Then there's the Puijila. The story is that organisms evolved from non-living material (a violation of the law of biogenesis and contrary to every single observation related to it) and slowly, over eons of time, changed from single cellular organisms to multi-cellular organisms to, eventually, fish that slowly began to walk out of the water onto land. These guys eventually became amphibians, then reptiles, then birds and mammals. The problem is we have mammals that live in the water. How did that happen? Well, there are wonderful stories evolutionists will tell of how land-dwelling mammals decided to migrate back into the water to become whales. I'll get into the terrible science, dishonest story telling, and over reporting that has gone into that later. There are similar issues with sea lions and seals. Where did these guys come from? Obviously, as a creationist, I believe they came from the creative mind of God on day 6 of creation week. But the evolutionist will explain how this fossil—Puijila—is a transition from land to sea dwelling creatures, like the sea lion and seal. This group of animals is called “pinnipeds.” This has been an issue for evolutionists because there are tons of fossils of pinnipeds, but nothing to show where they came from—who their ancestors were. What I mean is there is nothing in the fossil record to show land dwelling mammals that migrated and evolved to live in the water. This fossilized creature is all they have. However, it's nothing more than a river otter. The similarities between it and otters are extensive, while its similarities to pinnipeds are lacking. It has feet and a long tail, which distinguishes it from seals and sea lions, and its proportions are exactly that of river otters. You may even find “scientific” articles that say its eyes and teeth were like those of pinnipeds, but this is simply not true. They are more like river otters. Richard Dawkins, the infamous God-hating evolutionist, stated, “Puijila neatly straddles the gap between land and water in the ancestry of pinnipeds. It is yet another delightful addition to our growing list of ‘links’ that are no longer missing.”

It's almost cute how these guys get so excited about something that is clearly not what they so desperately want it to be. They long for a story to tell that helps them feel better about denying the existence of, and therefore their accountability, to God. If evolution is accepted, then there is no need for a Creator. The ramifications are astounding. Man's hatred for God is what fuels the desire for evolution to be a reality (although, to date, we have no actual evidence other than circular arguments and imagination). But the smoke and mirrors of evolution are not held in a monopoly by humanists/atheists. Sadly, some Christians have rejected the clear reading of Scripture and have decided to buy into the origins myth that “science” teaches. They call themselves “theistic evolutionists” and believe atheism when it comes to origins and believe the Bible on redemption. They want it both ways, but it just doesn't work. Unfortunately, it's not science at all but atheism masquerading as an intellectually superior worldview. The fact is, atheism is void of substance, is cold and hopeless, lacks consistency to any real degree at all, borrows from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it, and has more holes in it than a golf resort. Don't be fooled into thinking these ideas—evolution and/or the big bang theory—are scientific ideas at all or supported by evidence. They are not supported to any degree and are only alternatives to what we plainly see all around us: that God is real and He created the universe and all life on earth.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.