Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
If evolutionists had a long list of transitional fossils (or even a short list) that they could point to that proved that the living creatures on this planet were “evolving”, then frequently discovering fossils that obviously were unchanged –though supposedly millions of years old would not be so problematic for them.
We’ve written here about the unchanged “95 million year old octopi”, and the fossil lamprey, allegedly 360 million years old which was identical in every respect to â€śmodernâ€ť lampreys, and the alleged 150 million year old squid that was also identical to “modern” squids. So, if we have no transitional fossils and we have a surfeit of ancient bees that were bees and ants that were ants and spiders that were; spiders etc. etc. why would anyone believe that Darwinism is true?
Photo: Gould; saying more stuff “out of context”?
It was famous Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould who said “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”.
I have to tell you that evolutionists will do a spit take if you say that there are no transitional fossils–but they become downright upset and angry if you go to the Stephen Jay Gould quote. “You’re quoting him out of context they shout”, (or type), ironically, looking just like angry men have always looked from the time of Adam. (They’re unchanged just like spiders and bees.)
Can you imagine a scenario wherein Gould was not really trying to say that there were not a lot of transitional fossils around and that this information was not something generally known? Maybe he was just quoting the lines from some unknown B Movie?
Colin Patterson, another prominent evolutionist, formerly a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and author of the book “Evolution” said the following re: transitional fossils and his understanding of what Gould and some of his associate paleontologists meant by the “lack of transitional fossils”
Photo:Evolution 2nd Edition; Now without transitional fossils! (Previously without transitional fossils).
In a letter to an evolutionist who had complained about the lack of drawings of these whimsical creatures (transitional ones) in Patterson’s book; Evolution, Patterson responded;
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide itâ€¦
Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils..”â€¦
Indeed they are Colin! (he’s passed on)
Re: the subject at hand; scientists have discovered the very well preserved fossil of a spider which they claim is 165 million years old. Was it some kind of “pre-spider”? Something very primitive in the spider line with you know; stooped shoulders, a prominent forehead and copius hair? We know from years of indoctrination that these are the qualities that make a creature primitive.
Nope! According to the article:
E. gertschi shows all the features of the modern members of the family, found in North America, suggesting it has evolved very little since the Jurassic period, Selden said.
â€śThe scimitar-shaped structure you notice out of the male is so distinctive,â€ť he said. â€śLooking at modern ones, you think, well, itâ€™s just a dead ringer.â€ť
Read More Here
Thanks to Chris Z……