Loading
Close
stagevu

Hide

Login

Don't remember me (shared computer)
Recover account/Reactivate
 
Hide

9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Thumbnail: click to play
Direct download link (.avi file). Can't watch this? Download the DivX Plus Web Player for Windows or for Mac! Not working? Troubleshoot!
This video is rated:
33300
Rate this video:
12345
Share
Favourite
Report
Add to Channel
+ Add  

Tags

Added October 15, 2009Video Info

By:BloodLust
Category:Educational
Length:10:31
Resolution:320 x 240
Filesize:37 MB
Language:English
Viewed:2174 times

The 9th falsehood of Creationism:
“No transitional species have ever been found.”

When Charles
...The 9th falsehood of Creationism:
“No transitional species have ever been found.”

When Charles Darwin published his landmark observations in 1859, he lamented that the fossil record was still quite poor at that time. It was only in the last century or so earlier that anyone had even proposed the possibility that a single species could completely die out, and the first dinosaur wasn’t discovered until Darwin was a boy. Fossils were known by previous generations of course, but extinct and therefore unfamiliar varieties were often mistaken for the fanciful monsters of mythology –if they were recognized at all –which usually requires a well-trained perception of both geology and animal morphology. That’s especially rare when you’re talking about an organism no one has ever seen alive.

When something dies, it is usually disassembled, digested, and decomposed. Only rarely is anything ever fossilized, and even fewer things are very well-preserved. Because the conditions required for that process are so particular, the fossil record can only represent a tiny fraction of everything that has ever lived. Darwin provided many environmental dynamics explaining why no single quarry could ever provide a continuous record of biological events, and why it would be impossible to find all the fossilized ancestors of every lineage. But despite this, he predicted that future generations, -having the benefit of better understanding- would discover a substantial number of fossil species which he called “intermediate” or “transitional” between what we see alive today and their taxonomic ancestors at successive levels in paleontological history.

In fact, in the century-and-a-half since then, we’ve found millions of evolutionary intermediaries in the fossil record, much more than Darwin said he could reasonably hope for. There are three different types of transitional forms and we have ample examples of each. But creationists still insist that we’ve never found a single one, because what they usually ask us to present are impossible parodies which evolution would neither produce nor permit.

“You’ve gotta be able to prove transitional forms;
one animal transitioning into another.
And all through the fossil record and life,
we don’t find one of these, a crocoduck.
There’s just nothing like it.”

In fact, Darwin explained in detail why we should NOT find anything like this. We’re not looking for a blend of two species that both currently exist. Such a thing would actually go against evolution. Instead, he said, that if his theory were true, then what we should find would be a basal form potentially ancestral to both current species. And in this one case alone, we’ve found dozens of them in a near continuous lineage dating beyond the dawn of the Mesozoic era.

The most famous one was the first ever recognized as such. Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered in 1860. It was the first of many lines of evidence revealing that birds had evolved from dinosaurs. So Darwin’s theory was first vindicated while he was still alive. Of course creationists will never accept that, and still complain that archaeopteryx can’t be intermediate because we can’t prove it’s the single crown species from which all other birds emerged. But it doesn’t have to be, and that’s not what transitional means. In biology, species can be precisely identified genetically. But in paleontology, they’re determined morphologically.

So creationists argued that Archeaopteryx still doesn’t qualify because it’s “100% bird”. But they’re difficult to pin down as to why they say this, because this animal, like all other quasi-birds of that age, lacks many definitive features of modern birds, and it retains so many distinctly saurian features that when the last Archaeopteryx was found in the 1960s, the traces of its feathers weren’t immediately evident, and it was thus mistaken for a small dinosaur called Compsognathus.

But creationists continue to use every excuse they can think of to dismiss Archaeopteryx as an intermediate species. They complained that its lungs weren’t right to be transitional, or that it had the wrong kind of pelvis. They even tried to imply that every such fossil found so far were fakes. They think any excuse will do, and they’ve done the same attempting to summarily dispute every additional intermediary ever seen since. No matter what, creationists will not admit that anything we ever find can fulfill Darwin’s prediction of transitional intermediates.

This is why creationists demand only monstrous absurdities or issue challenges they know still couldn’t be satisfied no matter how true evolution may be; because they know already that whatever they insist on seeing today we may show them tomorrow, and if that happens, they’ll have to make up new excuses for why it still doesn’t count. So they won’t request to see anything evolution actually requires, and they usually won’t define any criteria they would accept either, because they already know they won’t accept anything even if we show them everything they ever ask for.

It doesn’t help that they won’t look at what they don’t want to see either. Many people think there are no transitional species because the only fossil forms they’re aware of at all are a handful of plastic pieces in a prehistoric play set. They’ve no idea how rich the fossil record is! We know of several hundred species just within dinosaurs, to say nothing of the thousands of examples of each of hundreds more taxa apart from that. Experts estimate that all the collective genera still roaming around now only amount to about 1% of all the species that have ever lived. Practically everything there ever was ain’t no more. Every species living today has definite relatives both extant and extinct, and evident in the fossil record. And in one sense, all of them, even the things still alive, count as transitional species.

But of course creationists don’t accept that, and insist on a much more restrictive definition. That’s fine. But in order to determine for certain whether anything does or doesn’t meet the requirements, we have to know what those requirements are, and there is one creationist website brazen enough to post a definition of transitional species which is also correct according to evolutionary biologists. So at least we can verify there is a common set of criteria both groups can agree upon.

However, this site also says that no such evolutionary links have ever been found. But then it goes on to list several that have been –attempting to dismiss extant examples of single-cell to multicellular transitions, the successive phylogeny of insects, the emergence of vertebrates, and of whales, amphibian fish, therapsid “mammal-like reptiles”, and acquired adaptations for flight in dinosaurs, pterosaurs, insects, and bats. I wrote to one of the webmasters of this site, and pointed out all these items in their list of things never-found that we actually have, and explained how all of them meet every one of the criteria he himself laid out. He wrote back saying he knew that of course, but wouldn’t make any corrections on the excuse that he could even ignore his own rules if he needed to.

A decade ago, Kathleen Hunt, a zoologist with the University of Washington, produced a list of a few hundred of the more dramatic transitional species known so far, all of which definitely fit every criteria required of the most restrictive definition. Myriad transitional species have been, and still are being, discovered; so many in fact that lots of biologists and paleontologists now consider that list “innumerable” especially since the tally of definite transitionals keeps growing so fast! Several lineages are now virtually complete, including our own.

“By the way, the missing link? It’s still missing!”

No it isn’t. Hasn’t been for a long time now. There was a missing link in 1859 when there were only two species of humans yet known in the fossil record, and no intermediate fossils to link them with any of the other apes we knew of at that time. Since then, we’ve found the fossils of thousands of individuals of dozens of hominid species, many of which provide a definite link to the other apes. But there were two particular pieces predicted to complete the puzzle:

First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us –to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident “chain” of transitional species from which only one more “link” was needed.

The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. We’ve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct. But more than that, the theory also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.

But worse than that, we didn’t just find that one. In 1977, three years after we discovered the no-longer-missing link in the human evolutionary lineage, Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould mentioned an “extreme rarity” of other clear transitions persistent in the fossil record ‘til that time, and his comment, -taken out of context- remains a favorite of creationist quote-miners to this day. But in the more than 30 years since then, there has been a paleontological boon such that we now have way more transitional species in many more lineages than we ever needed or hoped for.

Now the problem for evolution is that there are too many contenders, while a compounding problem for creationists is that not even one of them should exist if their story was true. And yet they do –by the bushelful! Despite their complaints to the contrary, the intermediate gradations in the human evolutionary line are now so fine that paleoanthropologists can’t agree whether they’re all different species or merely mildly modified varieties of the same ones, such that there are no more links needed for human evolution anymore.

But creationists still say we’ve never found anything that was “half-ape and half-human”. Adhering always to black or white absolutes, and being thus unwilling to admit any degree of variance other than 100% or zero, they make sure to divide every find into one of two boxes even when they can’t make up their minds which side of that imaginary partition each one belongs to.

Demanding an “ape-man” is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. How about a half dachshund, half dog? It’s the same thing. One may as well insist on seeing a town half way between Los Angeles and California. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included. This is no arbitrary classification like the creationists use. It was first determined via meticulous physical analysis by Christian scientists a century before Darwin, and has been confirmed in recent years with new revelations in genetics. Furthermore, it is impossible to define all the characters exclusively indicative of every known member of the family of apes without describing our own genera as one among them. Consequently, we can and have proven that humans are apes in exactly the same way that lions are cats, and iguanas are lizards, and whales are mammals. So where is the proof that humans descend from apes? How about the fact that we’re still apes right now!


The 9th falsehood of Creationism:
“No transitional species have ever been found.”

MoreLess

Hide

Share

You can share this video by inserting this link into your emails or posts:

Or you can insert this code into your website, blog, forum, and so on to embed your video.
Pick the colours and the dimensions of the video to customize the embed:

Dimensions



Colours

 

           

           

Preview embed
Hide

Report

If this video has any content that goes against our terms and condition, for example, has explicit adult content, please enter the reason and we will review it shortly.

Please note that if you would like a video removed on copyright grounds, you must provide proof that you are a representative of the copyright holder. In this case, it may be easier to contact us directly.

You have 200 character(s) left.
Hide

Add to Channel

You must be logged in to create or edit a channel. Log in or sign up to take advantage of this feature!
Hide

Add Tags

You must be logged in to add tags. Log in or sign up to take advantage of this feature!

Comments

What do you think of this video? Leave a comment.
You have 1000 character(s) left.
Since you entered a URL in your comment, please verify that you are human by copying the two words.
Gideon C wrote 1 month ago: What a pile of crap! There are no truly
Rating: 0 Show
What a pile of crap! There are no truly transitional species, and this does nothing to prove it.... DUH!!!!!
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: 0
CatsLairArchives wrote 2 months ago: I'm sick of this fucking video showing u
Rating: +1 Show
I'm sick of this fucking video showing up in EVERY GOD DAMNED SEARCH, no matter what terms or words you search for!!!
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: +1
fredrick1 wrote 3 years ago: By the way, all species' can be consider
Rating: +1 Show
By the way, all species' can be considered potentially transitional species. No species is entirely genetically stable, and any specific mutation can lead to a subspecies--and eventually to a parallel or superseding species.
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: +1
fredrick1 wrote 3 years ago: One of the most egregious signs of illog
Rating: -2 Show
One of the most egregious signs of illogic is to resort to name-calling,
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: -2
jason kaleph wrote 4 years ago: Because you have your own agenda, and th
Rating: 0 Show
Because you have your own agenda, and that's all that matters to you.
Not using your brain and attempting to find any sort of truth to any matter.
It also reminds me of kids who watch wrestling and profess that it is real.
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: 0
jason kaleph wrote 4 years ago: Fanatic christians wont let credible peo
Rating: -2 Show
Fanatic christians wont let credible people (not just scientists) finish a sentence before throwing in objections. That's one reason the rest of the world doesn't and will never take you seriously, you don't examine both sides of any debate objectively. It's like a crackhead argueing with a police officer, attempting to claim that the bag of coke he just tossed on the ground in front of everyone "isn't really his."
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: -2
jason kaleph wrote 4 years ago: Sechamplain: 1. There is no reason they
Rating: +1 Show
Sechamplain: 1. There is no reason they would have to be more or less prevalent than any other fossils, you just made that up off the top of your head.
2. It takes certain conditions in combination to created fossils, that has nothing to do with their stage in evolution, but with geological conditions.
3. You are upset bc you have to violently jump all over any possibly conceivable flaw in science and make a fuss about it just to make it seem non-credible because that is the only card you guys have left to play.
TRY AGAIN NEXT TIME.
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: +1
sechamplain wrote 4 years ago: Anyone so stupid that they would believe
Rating: 0 Show
Anyone so stupid that they would believe this lying crock on nonsense deserves the deception they get. Transitional fossils BY NECESSITY of concept MUST BE FAR MORE PREVALENT than non-transitional fossils. This is a no-brainer. These fools are not only grasping for straws, but they want you to be their fools so they can tell themselves that their nonsense is legitimate.

Brain dead idiots.
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: 0
KAOTIK HATE wrote 4 years ago: And if you believe you were spat out of
Rating: +1 Show
And if you believe you were spat out of god vagina and moulded like the bible says than thats fine. why not take a minute and realise that you televangelists and you creationism is a form of idolatry and not science. science is about something that is closer to god than the bible is. science is about understanding natural law and the universe around is not just listening and paying money to one moron who can twist one verse of a 2300 year old book for an hour to form whatever message he wants. science is about theory till proved or disproved, so your idea of god might be a theory, and if no one can disprove it then it can remain valid to you. not all people who believe in evolution are athiest some are agnostic and lots ARE christian.
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: +1
Tony Ynot wrote 4 years ago: Yo dudes, if u believe u come from rocks
Rating: +1 Show
Yo dudes, if u believe u come from rocks, that is fine by me, but my GOD and LORD JESUS says I must tell u about HIM. do u know what sins is. Sin is transgression of the law, do u steal, lie cheat that is sin. u can not go to heaven nor will you be with GOD. REPENT OF YOUR SINS, ask JESUS to wash your sins away and believe in JESUS, so that when u did you will go to heaven.
NOW I really dont care if you do or not but like I say, I must do what my LORD AND GOD says. have a good death.
Is this comment offensive or spam? Report it Rate: + - Rating: +1