Piltdown Superman

Because of evolutionary presuppositions, the discovery of the first Archaeopteryx lithographica  fossil shortly after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species , it caused quite a stir. The scientific community was beginning to take Darwin seriously, and here was alleged evidence for the first bird. Over the years, other  Archaeopteryx  fossils were discovered. Darwin's disciples were pushing the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds, so Archie was claimed to be a transitional form. This has been debunked, but the transitional form concept is zombified and keeps coming back. Archaeopteryx lithographica, WikiComm, National Geographic Society / James L. Amos (PD) There are no half measures involved. The feathers were determined to be the kind used in flight, it had a wishbone (muscles attach there) so that involved flight as well, and other features of critters that exist today. In fact, it could be likened to the way a modern pheasant flies. No transitional form ...

Once again, the Archaeopteryx has evolutionary scientists in a flap. There are eleven good fossils showing that it had feathers, but the rapid burial required to make fossils leads to some distortion. So more fossils would have been nice. Paleontologists and evolutionary ornithologists were hoping to learn about the evolution of feathers, and the purpose for which this critter evolved them on its legs. This led to some amazingly bad speculation presented as science, even using a form of the argument from silence : Since they could not find what they were looking for, they made up further stories that had no substantiation. Bad science could be drastically reduced if scientists did not insist on forcing their evolutionary presuppositions on their interpretations of data. The evidence shows creation, not evolution. Some of the scientists were actually doing honest speculation about whether or not this bird could fly, based on their examination of the data. When it became assertions...

I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” — Colin Patterson   Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that the fossil record proves macroevolution is true. Creationists cite evolutionists who say that there are no transitional forms, then get accused of quote mining . Damage control! Then, the evolutionary faithful will trot out pictures of fossils, say that there are many transitional forms, and paste material from angry anti-creationist sites like talk.origins (they should check out...

One of the most basic points against evolution is the scarcity of "transitional forms" (something in process of evolving into something else). When queried, fundamentalist evolutionsts exclaim, "The fossil record is full of transitional forms!" Actually, no. When something is found that can be considered a transitional form, it makes the news. Why? Because they are so scarce! Just like archaeopteryx was reclassified as a true bird (again) , Tiktaalik is also a disappointment for the faith-based, no evidence religion called evolution. Tracks of footprints found in a quarry in Poland have turned the palaeontological world upside down. For years there has been a neat evolutionary story about how fish evolved four legs and came out of the ocean onto the land. Probably the most famous fossil in this sea-to-land icon of evolution is Tiktaalik roseae , a fish with fins that was claimed to have had features intermediate between fish and tetrapods. Creation...