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 feathers 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 »
While that is scientifically accurate, i don't find it to be a particularly useful point in talking to creationists. It's hard enough to convince them of dramatic transitional forms like this one.
@Pikachu @Sharon Yeah Sharon, don't you DARE point out stuff that he said wrong! Or he will condescend to you. Better you should just turn away and mock a believer.
