Page 57 - The Transitional Form Dilemma

Evolutionists claim that fish
evolved from such invertebrate sea crea-
tures as pikaia; amphibians and modern-day
fish from some ancestral fish; reptiles from amphib-
ians, birds and mammals from separate groups of rep-
tiles—and finally that human beings and present-day apes
evolved from a common ancestor.
In order to demonstrate the scientific veracity of these
claims, they need to be able to show fossils of transitional crea-
tures that represent a clear turning point in the development of
these species. As already made clear, however, there is not the
slightest trace of these imaginary creatures. For that reason, evolu-
tionists persist in their biased interpretations of some fossils, sug-
gesting that these represent transitional forms. Yet these obligatory
transitional links are the subject of much controversy, even among
evolutionists themselves. Not one so-called transitional link has
ever been unconditionally accepted, because these are not actu-
ally transitional links at all. However, since evolutionists are
obliged to come up with some such progression, they inter-
pret some of the fossils they have found as intermediate
forms.
Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural
History has this to say about evolutionists’ arbitrary
selection of evolutionary ancestors:
We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those. Why?
“Because we know they have to be there, and these are
the best candidates.” That’s by and large the way
it has worked. I am not exaggerating. 25
This chapter will be