Anatomy has everything to do with it as well as the stratigraphic
occurrence of the fossil. I quote the YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST Kurt Wise
who calls transitional fossils 'stratomorphic intermediates'. Kurt is on
YOUR side and has no presuppositions in favor of Darwinism or evolution. He
wrote,
"Stratomorphic intermediate species and organismal groups should be a
common feature of the fossil record. And examples of stratomorphic
intermediates do exist. Mammal-like reptiles stand between reptiles and
mammals, both in the position of their fossils and in the structure of
their bones. The reptiles, and the phenacodontids, which stand between the
horses and their claimed ancestors. In like manner, some fossil genera are
stratomorphic intermediates in the group in which they are classified.
They are the oldest fossils known in the group and most similar to the
group from which they are supposedly descendent. Examples include Pikaia
among the chordates, Archaeopteryx among the birds, Baragwanathia among
lycopods, Ichthyostega among the amphibians, Purgatorius among the
primates, Pakicetus among the whales and Proconsul among the hominoids." ~
Kurt P. Wise, "The Origin of Life's Major Groups," in J. P. Moreland,
editor The Creation Hypothesis, (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994),
p. 227.
Kurt also made the statement in the young-earth, antievolutionary journal
CEN Technical journal.
"Explanation: Of Darwin's four stratomorphic intermediate expectations,
that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has
been the most dissappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of
any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led
to the development and increased acceptance of puntuated equilibrium
theory. Darwin's second expectation -- of stratomorphic intermediate
species -- has been confirmed by such species as _Baragwanathia_(between
rhyniophytes and lycopods),_Pikaia_(between echinoderms and chordates),
_Purgatorius_(between the tree shrews and the primates), and
_Proconsul_(between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's
third expectation -- of higher taxon stratomorphic intermediates -- has
been nicely confirmed by the mammal-like reptile groups between the
reptiles and the mammals and the phenacodontids between the horses and
their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation -- of stratomorphic
series has been beautifully confirmed by such examples as the early bird
series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of
the Cenozoic (e.g. the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series,
the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the _Cantius_ and
_Plesiadapus_ primate series, and the hominid series. The existence of
stratomorphic intermediates of the general type expected a priori by
macroevolutionary theory (above the level of species) should be
acknowledged by creationists for what it is: very good evidence for
macroevolutionary theory. It certainly CANNOT be said that the traditional
creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds." ~ Kurt
Wise, "Towards a Creationist Understanding of 'Transitional Forms'" CEN
Technical Journal 9(1995):2:216-222, p. 218-219
"At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic
intermediate record appears (to me) to come from the fossil record of the
whales." ~ Kurt Wise, "Towards a Creationist Understanding of 'Transitional
Forms'" CEN Technical Journal 9(1995):2:216-222, p. 219
**
"Furthermore whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-flood)
sediments. This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the
whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.
At present I would say that creation theory has no good explanation for
the fossil record of whales." ~ Kurt Wise, "Towards a Creationist
Understanding of 'Transitional Forms'" CEN Technical Journal
9(1995):2:216-222, p. 219
To quote Behe in DARWIN'S BLACK BOX,
>pp.22 "Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin.
>Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution
>could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. It no
>longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record of whether
>the record is as continuous as that of U.S. Presidents."
So if it doesn't matter if the record is continuous and there are plenty of
transitional forms, what is your objection to Eucritta melanomolimnetes
being a transitional feature? Wise says transitional forms exist and Behe
says there is no reason to reject them. Time to update your
anti-evolutionism.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm