Darwinist media organizations have embarked on a new wave of propaganda aimed at portraying a fossil just described in the journal Nature (i), (ii), (iii) as an absent network. The fossil in distrust is that of a fish, discovered in Arctic Canada by the paleontologists Neil H. Shubin and Edward B. Daeschler in 2004. Given the scientific name Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil is estimated to be 385 million being old. Evolutionists looking for feasible candidates for their tales of a transition from water to land are putting the fossil forwards as an intermediate form by distorting its "mixture" skin.

However, the request of a transition from water to land is no more than a delusion, because the physiological gulfs between terrestrial animals and fish cannot be overcome by any of the fictitious mechanisms of the model of evolution. The newest challenge to make Tiktaalik roseae fit this scenario, which is supported out of blind loyalty to the belief of evolution and rests on no scientific prove whatsoever, is based on preconceptions and intentional misinterpretation. The data the Darwinist media have concealed in their Tiktaalik roseae propaganda are set out below.

Tiktaalik roseae: A variety life form which is no evince for evolution

There are three well-preserved fossil specimens of Tiktaalik roseae. Some 3 meters long, the insect exhibits numerous medley characteristics. (Mosaic life forms repress skin belong with different groups of life forms.) As in fish, it has fins and scales. Features such as its plane travel, portable peninsula and relatively athletic rib assembly are found in terrestrial animals. The animal, whose name is resulting from the Inuit talking Inuktitut and means "a large, shallow-water fish," also has bones in its pectoral fins. Evolutionists distort these mixture properties according to their own preconceptions and persist that the animal is a transitional form between fish and terrestrial life forms.

Mosaic life forms, however, are very far from being the intermediate forms necessary by the concept of evolution. The offer-day Platypus that lives in Australia, for example, is a mosaic animal that possesses mammalian, reptilian and avian skin at one and the same time. Nevertheless nothing about it constitutes any funds for the scheme of evolution. Mosaic life forms are not what evolutionists ought to find to back up their claims; the hardship to find "intermediate forms," which would have to be with wanting, only half-twisted and not wholly functional organs. Yet everyone of the organs possessed by mosaic creatures is downright and perfect. They have no partly-urbanized organs, and there are no fossil chain that can be planned as show that they evolved from some other life forms.

The scheme of evolution hypothesizes that a course based on haphazard mutations, in other words on hazard, took place. According to this right, the millions of living species on Earth must have evolved from a huge number of intermediate forms, all subjected to occasion mutations, and as an answer had buckled, abnormal structures, and the fossils of these so-called intermediate forms should have been found. To put it another way, the fossil album should be overflowing with the vestiges of life forms that can only be described as freaks of scenery. However, this is known not to be the crate. When species emerge, they do so swiftly, with all their distinguishing features copious developed, and with no string of freaks among them. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, keeper of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum, describes the title as follow:

In nearly all gear a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil entry with most definitive features already dowry, and practically no known stem-group forms. (Tom Kemp, Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246)

The broad picture concealed by evolutionists

Evolutionists work to give the impression the fossils actually support the idea of evolution. Yet the "gone relation" concept is one that has been false solely in the light of the needs of the scheme of evolution and has no counterpart in the fossil details itself. The require of fossil relatives alleged to unite species to each other has been known ever since Darwin's time. Excavations by paleontologists since Darwin's day have also futile to resolve this post, which represents such a tomb deadlock for the guess of evolution and, on the reverse, have spread confirmed the absence of any omitted relations among living groups.

E. R. Leach, novelist of the book Rethinking Anthropology, wrote this in his term in Nature:

Missing family in the chain of fossil proof were a care to Darwin. He felt certain they would eventually ride up, but they are still gone to seem possible to wait so. (E. R. Leach; Nature, 293: 19, 1981)

A. S. Romer, one of the most imminent paleontologists of his time, said this on the topic:

"Links" are gone just where we most eagerly request them [to position to a transition between species] and it is all too probable that many "relations" will continue to be mislaid. (A. S. Romer, in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution, 1963, p. 114)

David B. Kitts, professor of geology and the saga of facts at the University of Oklahoma admits the absence of the intermediate forms necessary by the guess of evolution:

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not afford them. (David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467)

The picture that emerges from the fossil entry is completely compatible with world. The greatest reveals that living gear appeared swiftly and lived for long periods of time lacking undergoing any change at all. These specifics can plainly be seen in an evaluation of evolution's fossil standoff by the American paleontologist R. Wesson in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection. Stating that the gaps in the vinyl are right, Wesson goes onto say that the absence of vinyl of any evolutionary branching is rather phenomenal. Species are generally static for long periods. Species and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but are replaced by another, and change is usually abrupt. (R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45)

Some 250,000 fossil species have been unruffled to meeting, and there is absolutely no trace of intermediate forms in any of them. Evolutionists are behaving irrationally and unscientifically by ignoring this and embarking on campaigns of absent network propaganda.

The Error of Biological Inference from Skeletal Remains

When the bodies of vertebrates are fossilized, the generally authority no ruins behind apart from bones. However, bones avoid traces of only a very imperfect part of vertebrate ecology, about 1%. When evolutionists launch interpreting the fossil ruins of a creature, most of the information about its ecology has been entranced. Evolutionists, with almost no information concerning the mortal's elastic tissue ecology "saturate" the gap in their knowledge according to the hassle of the notion of evolution, which they have adopted as a dogma long beforehand.

The intermediate formed claims the evolutionists goods solely by looking at bones is no more than nebulous guess. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton makes the post very empty:

Because tender ecology of dead groups can never be known with any certainty then visibly the class of even the most convincing intermediates fringe to be insecure. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books: London, 1985, p. 180)

Even the most convincing appearing intermediate forms for evolutionists can subsequently let them down very faultily. One brilliant example of this is the Coelacanth phenomenon.

Sensational hearsay showed the evolutionists have educated nothing from the Coelacanth phenomenon

As with the latest fossil Tiktaalik roseae, the Coelacanth is a fish the evolutionists once fondly imagined to be a misplaced relation in the transition from water to land. Evolutionists examined 400-million-year-old fossil Coelacanths, which was once alleged to be vanished, and drew several evolutionary conclusions from the carcass. For example, they maintained that the emaciated structures in its fins were feet that helped the animal gait across the sea stagger, and they also claimed that it possessed primeval lungs. The important aspect here is this: All these assumptions were made without any information about the Coelacanth's elastic tissue biology.

The erroneous type of producing evolutionary fantasies without any information about the animal's yielding tissues emerged following an important discovery in 1938. A living Coelacanth was wedged, screening that it was not, as had previously been thought, a vanished life form at all. Furthermore, many more living specimens were jammed in subsequent years. Evolutionists immediately set about examining the fish's anatomy and way of moving in its native environment, and saw that the omitted linkage assumptions they had approved to it were completely impolite. The fish, which they had tacit to live in shallow waters and to move by crawling over the ocean, actually lived at depths of around 180 meters, and they also practical that its fins never made exchange with the oceanic at all. The shape they imagined to be an evolving lung bowed out to be a fat-packed swim bladder that had nothing to do with respiration whatsoever.

The realization that the Coelacanth, which had once seemed such a convincing-looking intermediate form for evolutionists, was just a normal species of fish clearly shows that the intermediate form declare being made about this latest fossil is also based fully on uncertainties and speculation, because it, too, is based on imaginative interpretation of elastic tissues from the fossilized vestiges of a dead life form. In dumpy, the ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically pensive information in the light of evolutionist dreams.

Evolutionists' misplaced relation propaganda actually machinery against their own claims

Whenever a discovery is depicted as a misplaced associate, the evolutionist media forever give the impression that a most extraordinary sentence has been made, whereas the actually conflicts with their claims regarding the fidelity of evolution.

Was the system of evolution true, then the geological strata would be plump of fossil intermediates, and their numbers would be far better than that of all the species living nowadays or that ever lived in the ancient. Therefore, the discovery of gone links would be such a practice problem that it would have no gossip price at all.

Alternately, if, as evolutionists maintain, there were as much support for evolution as there is for the oblige of gravity, then coverage on absent connect discoveries would be as nonsensical as coverage on a granite terrified into the air declining back to the ground. In the same way that we would interest a news report along the ranks of "We threw a boulder into the air and it actually destroy back to Earth" as wholly insignificant, so we would stare reports appraisal "Paleontologists have discovered a new mislaid relation" as uniformly insignificant. In condensed, if evolution were a "truth," there would be no want for any absent link propaganda at all.

The evolutionary sequence in which Tiktaalik roseae has been placed is based solely on preconception

One can see in some newspapers that the latest fossil has been inserted as an intermediate form between Acanthostega and Eusthenopteron. By burden this, evolutionists are seeking to give the impression that the fossil tape chains evolutionary transitions and that the support for this is mounting up with every fleeting day. The statement is however that these string signify no evidence that the organisms in question evolved at all. For example, laying out a row of screwdrivers in order of range does not show that they are all descended from each other.

In detail there is no known evolutionary line of slope from Eusthenopteron to Tiktaalik roseae or from Tiktaalik roseae to Acanthostega. These life forms are separated from each other by morphological gulfs based on profound differences and millions of years of time. Evolutionists reveal only their own prejudices with the cycle into which they place Tiktaalik roseae. Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature and a paleontologist, admits that "mislaid links" and evolutionary sequence are the work of preconceptions:

New fossil discoveries are integral into this pre-open item. We call these new discoveries "omitted links", as if the chain of heritage and dive were a valid article for our contemplation, and not what it actually is: a completely creature invention produced after the reality, shaped to accord with soul prejudices. . . . Each fossil represents a solitary site, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all propose around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. (Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time, Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, p. 32)