by Josh Greenberger

Created on: May 22, 2009

The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public. One fossil does not represent a transitional species any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They're simply aberrations of nature.

You'd need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you'd need many transitional aberrations that couldn't survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.

There are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born deformed. In the millions of known cases, they haven't been known to drastically change the course of a species.

There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don't seem to drastically effect the course of the species.

Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.

Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms. Perhaps Ida was such a species. But evidence of evolution? There's absolutely nothing to indicate that.

There is absolutely no proof Ida's ancestors were whatever it is evolutionists claim they were. There is absolutely no proof that Ida's descendants become what evolutionists claim they became. All you have is one fossil that can be interpreted in so many different ways, and evolutionists, in their infinite ways of twisting facts, saying Ida somehow proves some aspect of evolution.

We had the same situation recently with the fossil of a creature, named Tiktaalik (pronounced tick-TAH-lick), which seemed to blur the line between fish-like creatures and four-legged animals, discovered on Ellesmere Island, in Arctic Canada. It was also touted as evolution's "missing link."

Have scientists considered that there could have been a species that had some of the characteristics of both aquatic and dry-land creatures, and didn't necessarily evolve from or to any other creature?

The discovery of Tiktaalik had also been widely reported on network television, in newspapers, in magazines, and on the internet, all claiming it to be proof of evolution. I have thus far not heard of a single account of an evolutionist listing other possibilities and describing by what rationale explanations other than evolution were eliminated.

Ida and Tiktaalik represent the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.

Learn more about this author, Josh Greenberger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.