Fossils Claimed To Be Missing Links For Crabs And Whales

What is being called a pretty enormous find with the fossil record concerning various types of animals. A claw was discovered that evolutionary scientists believe to be a ‘missing link’ in the fossil record…

“The specimen, named Schinderhannes bartelsi, was found fossilized in slate from a quarry near Bundenbach in Germany, a site that yields spectacularly durable pyrite-preserved fossils — findings collectively known as the Hunsrück Slate.”

“The Hunsrück Slate has previously produced some of the most valuable clues to understanding the evolution of arthropods – including early shrimp-like forms, a scorpion and sea spiders as well as the ancient arthropods trilobites.”

We know animals found in the Burgess Shale varied as the more complex and diversified animals were found not in the highest layers but in the lowest layers. However, the higher layers does contain some of the more complex animals as well but in terms of numbers, the lower layers (containing the older species) have more. Now it’s claimed this claw is a missing link for horseshoe crabs. This strange considering these animals have shown no evolution whatsoever in the fossil record in the evolutionary timeline of 350 million years.

Survival of the fittest, which is an evolutionary concept. The discovery puts this concept in a bad light. Because it’s another animal which is found to be complex and well adapted to it’s surroundings but yet went extinct anyway.

Now the other discovery about the supposed missing link for whales…

“The fossil discovery marks the first extinct whale and fetus combination known to date, shedding light on the lifestyle of ancient whales as they made the transition from land to sea during the Eocene Epoch (between 54.8 million and 33.7 million years ago).” Live Science

This discovery doesn’t help Darwin’s evolutionary tree which has been falsified, but I’m going to overkill this subject anyway. The discovery is not that much different from Rodhocetus which can be debated as not being a supposed missing link.

And what seems troubling, is the fact that rapid fossilization of this animal which had a little one in it’s womb is not really mentioned. While it’s true, evolutionists do not deny rapid fossilization, they surely don’t put much emphasis on it. The rapid fossilization of this animal most likely came from Noah’s flood, which would be the only way, to fossilize this animal in such a unique state and in such good condition.

A question comes to mind, why are these so-called missing links so rare?  There have been numerous discoveries of fossils which were well preserved, so one should be able to find hundreds of thousands of missing links all over the place! We should be able to more transitional forms of animals than regular forms of animals in the fossil record.

Evolutionary sequences are made up by humans, not by the data. The observed data can described as the handy work of God which enabled the species to diversify within it’s own kind. Just because animals have similarities doesn’t prove they evolved from one another. Humans have similarities with a banana (50 percent DNA similarities) but certainly humans did not evolve from a banana nor are humans half banana and half human.

Evolutionists like to use the convergence concoction, where the impossible happens over and over again…

“Generally, the assumed transitions in the evolutionary story do not require a scientific explanation. Evolution is assumed to be responsible for every feature of every organism that ever existed. The key to defining an evolutionary ancestral relationship is usually similarity of structure. The differences are assumed to be the result of evolution.”

“Sometimes however when things looks similar it is obvious that the similarity could not come from an evolutionary ancestral relationship. Examples of this are fins in fish and whales, or wings in bats and birds. Evolutionists dub this “parallel evolution”.  The basic evolutionary rule is that similarity indicates ancestral relationship except when it doesn’t. That covers everything.”

Fossils claimed to be missing links for crabs and whales do not hold any valid scientific explanation, it’s all based on presumptions, yet it also lacks a viable scientific explanations. There is a difference between historical science and experimental science.


One thought on “Fossils Claimed To Be Missing Links For Crabs And Whales

  1. You say: “Because it’s another animal which is found to be complex and well adapted to it’s surroundings but yet went extinct anyway.”

    Perhaps because the surroundings changed more rapidly than the species could evolve … why do you assume the Earth to be unchanging ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s