Transitional fossils query as Canadian asks “what do we say to claims on “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 1B” Copyright C 1994-1997 by Kathleen Hunt She wrote in Species-to-species transition, referring to a set of numerous individual fossils, “that show a change between one species and another. It’s a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently “sudden” change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many ‘species-to-species transitions’ are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals.”

Editorial Comment: This comment is not new, but it has been turned into more of a lie now than it was when this editor was a geology student at University. The guru in my student days was George Gaylord Simpson who said the same thing, but went on to qualify it, and then deny his qualification in order to support evolution.

George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), wrote in The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

His statement of truth: “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

His qualification: “When paleontological collection was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic categories in particular.”

His denial of the first truth: “Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences.”

His reason for not listing any examples: “Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance.” (End of quote)

Then along came Gould, Eldrige and the professor of Geology at my old Uni, Prof Waterhouse, who used the very real gaps to demand a new theory of evolution called punctuated evolution. Which brings us to the facts at present: There are plenty of transitional forms, living and fossil, if you are trying to explain how Finch species 1 became Finch species 2. But Genesis is not about the origin of species, it is about the origin of separate Kinds. That’s why Gould could make a good case for punctuation based on real gaps in the fossil record which do not support Darwinism, and it’s also why we Creation Researchers win debates against evolutionists. (Ref geological record, missing links, gaps)

Evidence news 4 April 2007


We have now have a website dedicated to questions and answers. If you have a question for us, please go to Ask John Mackay. You may find your question has been answered. If not, please submit it there.