Friday, February 11, 2011

The Missing Link Fallacy

"its a bacchanalian romp of differing misconceptions and twisted logic - basically, nothing out of the ordinary for a creationist, for whom apparently the addition of even more terrible ideas can only strengthen your argument. Very quickly, I got bored of the tedious process of writing a comment correcting these misconceptions, and I was just about to ignore it and start writing my next article." Read More.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"


  1. Interesting article, unfortunately it reads a bit like a defense of 'why we don't have many transitional fossils' not entirely, but a bit.
    My approach leans more towards 'We have have heaps of them!'
    My favourites include:
    The 4 species of fossil snakes with legs. Najash, Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis.
    The 2 transitional 'half flat-fish' Amphistium and Heteronectes
    The Frogamander Gerobatrachus
    The half shelled turtle Odontochelys

    And those are just the ones of the top of my head. There are some great collections of them on YouTube.
    Then of course there is the hilarity that creation organizations can't agree which hominid fossils are 'completely human' and which ones are 'completely ape'.

    Quite simply Creationists have to demand ridiculous things like 'Where is the Crocoduck!' while the actual researchers are amazed by the latest Quadraped to Biped Dinosaur transitional fossil.

  2. Dozens of transitional fossils? Surely after billions of years of evolution, you should have hundreds of thousands if not millions of transitional animals alive today? Yet, we have an amazingly unique array of animals, with transitional animals very few and far between. Surely the transitional animals should out number the 'end or current product' animals we have alive today.

    1. What you're asking for is "hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transitional fossils" of one specific species.

      ...I'd be surprised if there were millions of fossils in total, let alone for *any* one species...

      Do you even know what a fossil is? ...Or how rare they are?

  3. And we do.

    As soon as you can define 'kind' we will have no problem showing the transitions.

  4. Creationism is true science! There are no intermediate fossils!

    1. Already answered. We can't show you the intermediates when you can't define the kinds.

    2. Just because you feel like closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and running around screaming "nah nah nah I'm right and you're wrong and you can't prove otherwise because I'm not listenniiiinnnnggg...."

      ... Just because you do that doesn't mean "creationism" is a science.

      I mean, you're getting nit-picky about fossils... but if I ask for evidence of this supposed deity that poofed us into existence you've got nothing...