Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins)

Claim CC200:


 * There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Source:
 * Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
 * Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.

CreationWiki response:

Note: Nowhere in Scientific Creationism does Morris say there are no transitional fossils. He recognized the existence of fossils that evolutionists call transitional but disagrees with the designation.

There are two main problems with the refutation of this claim. First, Talk.Origins quibbles about the meaning of the term "transitional" and thereby obscures the real issue. Second, it commits the error of assuming that transitional fossils between closely-related species are inconsistent with the creation model.

The problem here is the use of the word "transitional", the adjectival form of "transition" The use of the word "transitional" implies an ancestor / descendant relationship. If evolutionists do not mean it that way, then it is they that are redefining "transitional". Certainly when the average person hears the term "transitional form" they think ancestor / descendant, not simply a mosaic of different types. It also implies individual body parts in transition from one to the other. It seems that evolutionists are playing word games that make evolution theory seem stronger than it really is.

When the non-scientific layman hears that fossil B is "transitional between" A and C, he thinks it means A-B-C, but evolutionists may mean:

this:

this:

this:

this:

or any number of other possible combinations. Usually when a Creationist says there are no transitional fossils they are talking to layman in layman terms, not evolutionist technical terms.

While a field of study is free to define its internal terms as its practitioners see fit, when they use a common term in different way, they are obligated to distinguish between the technical and common uses of the term, but in this case it is seldom done.

The use of the word "transitional" is also loaded with evolutionary presupposition. A more appropriate term would be a "mosaic fossil".

If one assumes the common ancestor postulated evolution, then these mosaic fossils would show how different types are related even if they are out of sequence and/or not mosaic in other ways. However, when looked at from a more skeptical viewpoint, they often do not show any clear evidence of an actual transition. Sometimes the data is complete enough to make a good case that the animals are indeed related, but at other times it is not.

However, evolution requires that one type of living thing evolved into another type, via intermediates that would be transitional (in the normal meaning of the word) between the two types, and we should expect to find evidence of these amongst the fossil record. By claiming that there are "transitional" forms, but that these are not "transitional" in the normal understanding of the word, Talk.Origins has tacitly admitted that there are no such fossils, just as creationists claim!

However these gaps tend to show up in patterns predicted by a creation model.

Transitions between species and genera are to be expected, since the Biblical kind is most closely equivalent to family and even sometimes goes beyond it. In some cases these so-called transitional fossils are simply hybrids from interbreeding populations.

Since the Biblical kind sometimes goes beyond family, these are to be expected. The higher ones are filled out largely by fragments such as teeth. In some cases, mosaic fossils are placed in a gap, but there are usually good reasons to question the assumed relationships.

This statement is somewhat deceptive. First, the use of the term "human ancestors" shows how much evolution affects their views of these fossils. While it is hard to draw lines between the varieties of humans, there is a clear line between genus Homo (human) and genus Australopithecus. Evolutionists have blurred the line between the two by classifying as Homo some fossils that should belong to Australopithecus.

Most of the fossils used by evolutionists to make this claim are fragments or at best only reassembled skulls, both of which allow room for evolutionary presuppositions to influence the reconstructions. The only real area where the line between man and ape seems to be blurred is in brain size. This occurs because the extreme low end of human brain size overlaps there extreme upper end of ape brain size.

Furthermore, a 1994 study of the Australopithian inner ear drew a clear line between its facultative bipedalism, knuckle-walking, and arboreal climbing; and the obligatory bipedalism of the humans called Homo erectus.

Evolutionists do not have a clear reason for this trend but creation science does. If, instead of covering the 25 million years claimed by evolutionists, these animals lived shortly after the Flood, covering perhaps a few centuries at best, the change in morphology can be explained as a reaction to the availability of food. It is not unusual for an animal's appearance to be affected by the amount of available food. In the case of titanotheres, malnutrition could have stunted the growth of the animals and the production of their horn. As food became more available, the existing genetic potential to grow large and produce a large horn took over.

All this really shows is that Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa are varieties of the same kind of organism. The origin of spherical test is not a problem, even if it is truly a new feature. The spherical test is a less complex structure than the Globigerinoides shell and probably could have come from a degenerative duplicate copy of that gene. The other possibility is that the genetic information for the spherical test was present in earlier Globigerinoides but not switched on due to environment. In that case, the genes got past to Orbulina but may not have been passed to modern Globigerinoides. The intermediates would have resulted from a gradual environmental change.

None of these are the types of transitions that the original claim is referring to. From a creation science perspective these are just varieties within the same created kind.

The Australopithian inner ear was consistent with that of facultative bipedalism, knuckle-walking, and arboreal climbing of apes, and the bony ridge on the forearm is consistent with that. Rather than being in any way transitional, Australopithecus seems to still have walked like an ape. It was probably able to walk upright longer than most apes, but still seems to have been primarily a knuckle-walker.

They do not exist in objective reality. Yes, there are several bird / dinosaur mosaics, but there is no objective order.

Genesis 3:14 implies that snakes did originally have legs, and this is just evidence of that.

One hole in this is the fact the "oldest" mososaurs are "dated" to about 95 million years, while snakes are known to be older than that. Besides, only an evolutionist would see this as intermediate between snakes and lizards. Mososaurs were large marine reptiles that, while having jaws similar to those of a snake, also had a tail like a fish and teeth like a shark and crocodile. They are even described as looking like "a mixture of lizard, fish, and alligator", making it a classic mosaic. So one could just as well claim mososaurs are transitional between fish and lizards as a snake and a lizard. It all depends on what traits one decides to use.

These are basically nonexistent, and none of them are truly transitional.

They only qualify as transitional if one assumes evolution to start with.
 * Reference (Talk.Origins) There are gaps between fish-amphibian
 * Reference (Talk.Origins) Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians

See: (Talk.Origins) Sirenians

Even a casual comparison between Pezosiren portelli's skeleton and that of a manatee or  sea cow shows the claim that Pezosiren portelli  was a sirenian to be bogus. The skulls of both the sea cow and manatee have a similar morphology with a clear downward curve in the snout, while Pezosiren portelli has a straight snout. There are also significant differences in the shoulder blades. While there are similarities in the rib cage, there are difference as well. Furthermore, there are no transitional forms between Pezosiren portelli and true sirenian. As such, while Pezosiren portelliwas clearly a land animal the only connection with sirenian is in the imaginations of evolutionists.

These types of similarities don't even qualify as mosaics. Such similarities only constitute evidence of a relationship if one assumes evolution to start with. In creation science such similarities are evidence of a common designer.

Both Anomalocaris and Opabinia were arthropods that had a single lobopod trait. Such mosaic traits do occur even in organisms that are not considered by evolutionists to have a common ancestor with those traits.

This is quite vague. Most likely this echinoderm simply has traits in common with other deuterostomes, but without details there is no basis for an analysis.

Evolutionists do claim these fossil are transitional based on their presupposition of Evolution, but their best examples simply have mosaic traits. These traits are not part one type and part the other, but fully one or the other. What evolutionists need is to have major actual traits objectively in transition, such as between: Or new parts in development such as fins, eyes, nervous systems, and skeletons These types of have not been found.
 * Fin and leg.
 * Scale and Feather.
 * Scale and Hair.

Since Evolutionists do claim to have transitional fossils, this claim should be updated to read "There are no real transitional fossils.