They have several such examples, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this previously. Is there a reason you are making claims you know to be false?
How can you correct something that already correct?
I needed to go no further than the introduction on this one.....let me highlight the glaring flaws here....
"Introduction: All species undergo gradual change over time, but in the fossil record we find evidence of some changes that are particularly striking. This website is dedicated to some of these so-called transitional fossils.
Could those changes be striking because these creatures are not even related???? Like Pakicetus and whales for example. How long would it take to go from a 5 foot long, four legged furry land dweller to a 100 foot long marine creature with a well designed tail fluke?
What "so called transitional" creatures are assumed to be in between these two?
Yep, I can see the resemblance.....
And look this website comes with 2 warnings....
Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.
Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:
"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."
— Rusty Cashman / Wikipedia
Can you see what I see? Can you tell me how science knows that branching even happens, since they have never observed it? It is an assumption based on what they want to see in the fossil record. The intermediate creatures are no such thing. There is no way to prove relationship and the evidence presented is very flimsy. They appear to be separate creatures who lived millions of years apart.
In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring. But don't be misled into thinking that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. They're not even the strongest evidence for evolution."
Yep...confusion even among scientists because things just don't add up when you tell a fictional story......just as well they are not the strongest evidence then.
Last edited: