Voir le texte source

A transitional fossil shows the evolutionary development in one species to another. As an example, if years were existed 70 million years ago, and organism 2 shows up in the fossil record 5 million by organism 1 later, then theoretically there... Transitional fossils, or the supposed absence thereof, has been useful for a long time by anti-evolutionists to argue against development. Here, I'll explain just what a transitional fossil is, and why it is not good as an argument against evolution. The evolutionary development is shown by a transitional fossil from one species to another. Like, if organism 1 existed 70 million years ago, and organism 2 shows up in the fossil record 5 million years later, then theoretically there should be intermediate species in this 5 million year gap, which shows gradual development from species to some other. Having less these &quot;transitional&quot; fossils is proof to young earth creationists that progress is false.  [http://menswatchesonsale.xanga.com/ best mens watches]  Evolutionists show that certainly there are transitional fossils, and there are plenty of types of them. For instance, see this article.1 Here's the key point...even if young earth creationists accept these types of transitional fossils, they will still declare that you can find no transitional fossils! These fossils will be called either unique species, or they'll develop some reason (illness, beginning problem, and so on) that accounts for the apparent transition function. Normally, they will say, &quot;Where are the transitional fossils between these transitional fossils?&quot; If we had a definite fossil record, showing every 10,000 years to advancement for an incredible number of years, they'll maybe not believe it, and will need the &quot;transitional&quot; fossils for the lost 10,000 year period. No quantity of evidence can convict them that their belief is wrong. The same thing could possibly be said of modern creationists as well. Modern creationists believe in a classic world, but that God created each species a distinctive design, and maybe not evolved from an earlier species. I happen to be one of these simple myself. But, we ought to be careful not say our view may be the only one that's good. Many arguments have been put forth by dr. Hugh Ross of the old earth ministry Reasons to Believe, against evolution. But, when you look at the possibility that within Theistic Evolution, you've God directing the evolutionary approach, then all bets are off. Yes, evolution by itself could not have happened...as Dr. Ross explains, 13.7 billion years is not very nearly the full time, statistically talking, for evolution to occur. Nevertheless, with God's supernatural intervention and assistance, it could have simply happened. I'm maybe not saying that evolution is right, but what I'm saying is that with God, things are possible, including evolution. We should not be therefore quick, as modern creationists, to condemn evolution. Finish  [http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/5/prweb9536764.htm tumbshots]   [http://menswatchbrandsuk.wordpress.com/ inside mens watches on sale]  The fact young earth creationists will not be convinced, regardless of how much data is presented, makes this a weak argument. The argument isn't based on research, but on assumptions based on a new world interpretation of creation.  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3_3zXLMvbs mens watches on sale]