Why should specimens like these NOT be considered transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds by creationists? [Spirituality & Religion]
The definition of a transitional form is one which exhibits features which are characteristic of the ancestral organism and other features which are characteristic of the descendant organism.
These fossils fit that description exactly. They show dinosaur features like a toothy snout, long bony tail, clawed forelimbs and gastralia. But they also show avian features like feet adapted to perching rather than running, hollow bones and most conspicuously [i]feathers [/i]which were slightly asymmetrical making them more aerodynamic.
So does the creationist have a legitimate reason to deny this as a transitional form or is their denial anchored in their faith and not in science?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
This is something i hope to make clear with any creationists who attend the thread. Do they think there should be a half wing or some other malformed half feature?
That's why i included the definition of a transitional form here.
I've encountered a few creationists who reject or ignore that definition but i've yet to meet one who can offer a superior and functional definition to replace it.
