A response to evolutionists

Delshad wrote:

quote:

---

Evolutionists claim however that the single reptilian earbone evolved into three, this theory has been disproved because no such fossils have been found(not even one that implies that that transitional bones are on theyre making),

---

This is a misrepresentation of what evolutionists claim as the origin of the three ear bones in mammals. Hopefully, the misrepresentation was not intentional.Based upon a whole series of fossils as evidence, two of the bones in the mammalian ear are clearly modified reptilian jaw bones. Some of the fossils demonstrating the reptile to mammal transition show both reptilian jaw joint and mammalian jaw joint features simultaneously. Here is a summary of the evidence that addresses the origin of ear bones and many of the other features that distinguish mammals from reptiles:Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B

Delshad wrote:

quote:

---

In other words none of the foosils shows that they were "transitional" forms caused by random mutation because NONE of them has the caracteristics indicating it(asymmetrical forms or useless ineffective halfdone organs).

---

Your definition of a transitional form is unscientific. It is a straw man. There are in fact fossils that show features of both reptiles and mammals. Please read the FAQ from Talk.Origins to which I linked above. The fact that these organisms were "fully formed" and obviously fully functional (after all they survived to become fossils) does not mean they were not transitional. And despite your feeling that there should be millions of fossils that even you would recognize as transitional were evolution true, the simple fact that fossilization is something of a haphazard process guarantees there will be gaps, even if the process had been smooth (which it almost certainly was not when you consider the effects of mutations in genes controlling development).Part of the problem is that you want to see a series of fossils that show the smooth, unbroken, ladder-like progression of generations in order to be convinced. This is not how evolution or fossilization works, even though that is how you think it should. So I guess your faith is safe.But let's apply your logic to the opposite case so you can perhaps see what your argument is really like: Give me a list of all your ancestors back to Adam without any gaps. If you cannot give me that list, creationism must be false.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought someone once told me that there are 99 beautiful names for God in the Koran. It is my understanding that one of those names was "The Evolver." I always thought that was interesting. Something to think about anyway.