Hi Julian [and others,]



To move on to the second point you make against evolution: the absence of intermediate/transitional fossils.



There are two points of logic here.

1. If there are two species A and B and a fossil is found [as often has been the case] between A and B, let us call it X, which is claimed by the evolutionist to be intermediate, the evolutionist replies, "No, it is a new SPECIES between A and B not a transitional fossil. But there is something wrong here because the evolutionist can do this for ANY fossil that is found between A and B.

2. Suppose a fossil is found between two TYPES of animal. It will have characteristics of both. Nevertheless the animal might be classified as being one or the other. However this is just for convenience - it is still transitional between the two. See remarks below on archaeopteryx.



Why are transitional fossils infrequent.

1. Fossils are rare! Most animals leave no trace and it is unusual indeed for an animal to die in circumstance that allow fossilization.

2. If speciation takes place in small populations over a very short period of time then there would be hardly any such animals to form fossils anyway.

3. Further if evolution occurs in jumps rather than gradually, the same conclusion would apply.

4. Nevertheless there are plenty of transitional fossils for example...



Archaeopteryx.

I looked it up on

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

where there was a long article about this creature. You remember archeo is said by evolutionists to be transitional between dinosaurs and birds but creationists say it is a bird. Well sometimes it is classified as a bird but - see above - that does not mean it cannot be transitional too. Moreover the articles looks at its characteristics and says that it has more that are similar to dinosaurs than those that are similar to birds - though it has plenty that are bird like too.



What can I say about it? Not being a biologist I do not know how much weight to put on the fact that like a dinosaur the 'deltoid ridge of the humerous faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles'! Do you?



The fact is that as neither of us has much of a clue how to weigh this up. We are reduced to looking at competing websites and quoting them at each other. So is it a draw then? Well, 'No' , because I am going with the vast majority of scientists while you are going with a very small number all of whom have already decided that evolution is wrong. As an amateur here I have to go with the majority of experts as I would about any similar problem.



My next comment is not to 'get' at you because there is no reason why you should not do this. I think that the reason you do not accept evolution is nothing whatever to do with the science at all, which, in any case, you are not qualified to judge: it is rather that you have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution and so whatever evidence is put forward for evolution and however many scientists accept it, you will reject it. Correct?



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com