Claim CC202:
Sequences of transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry. For
example, with the fossil whale transition,
which evolutionists
consider as good a series of transitional fossils as one could hope to
find, the fossils show extinct side lineages at best. Even if we had a
fossil of every individual in the lineage, we could not verify direct
ancestry. Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even
in principle.
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2006. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and
Intelligent Design. Washington DC: Regnery, 18-23.
Response:
- Perfect knowledge is not necessary to verify a pattern. One does not
need to watch Jupiter constantly for twelve years, without blinking, to
verify that it orbits the sun. Common descent implies a pattern of
gradual change and diversification through time. The hundreds of
thousands of fossils which have been discovered are consistent with
this pattern, and they are not consistent with any other pattern that
has been proposed. (In particular, they rule out the possibility that
all present life forms existed in essentially the same form throughout
the history of life.) It is conceivable that fossils which have not
been found might differ wildly from this pattern, just at it is
conceivable that Jupiter might zigzag across the Solar System while we
blinked, but there is no reason to think so.
A transitional fossil is simply a fossil which shows traits
intermediate between two other fossils. Transitional fossils show
likely relationships clearly, and they sometimes show details of how
particular features arose. For example, the transitional fossils from
reptiles to mammals show how the inner ear
bones developed.
Such patterns are shown whether the fossils are connected by direct
ancestry or by another close relationship. And since we expect extinct
side lineages to be common, we would have evidence against evolution if
most transitional fossils were not from extinct side lineages.
- Knowledge advances by subjecting hypotheses to tests that effectively
distinguish one hypothesis from another. Fossil evidence, along with
other lines of evidence, does this. Since
every hypothesis
would fail Wells's requirement for having perfect knowledge before
accepting it, his is not an effective test. It can serve only to
reinforce one's own preconceptions. Wells himself promotes other
propositions on much less evidence, to put it mildly.
created 2006-8-24
