Replies

the two biggest problems for the evolutionists are the absence of transitional fossil forms and the blind-faith assertion that macroevolution has occurred.

I'll deal with the transitionals, as you included no information at all on them.

This will involve posting the "skulls" photograph that Mamzelle hates so much, so don't tell her, OK?

Now, the claim that there are no transitionals completely ignores the folks in this photograph. Except for #A, a modern chimp, the rest follow along in a fairly nice progression--which is laid out in the chart which follows the photograph.

Now, which of these are transitionals? Why, all of them! Every population (as evolution works on populations, not individuals) is transitional between ancestors and descendants. The small differences can build up over time into bigger differences.

Look at the similarities between #A (a modern chimp) and #B (Australopithecus). You can also see some differences.

These differences can also be seen in various other traits in the photograph. For example, note from #B to about #G and H the reduction in alveolar prognathism (the forward projection of the lower face). Note also the increase in brain size from #C to #I.

Now, you have see with your own eyes that there are intermediate steps in the process of changing from #B, a very chimp-like early ancestor to #N, modern humans. These intermediate steps can be called transitionals.

OK, skip to the bottom for closing comments.

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

Of course I do not expect you to accept this, because it would obviously go against your already-decided religious beliefs.

But it is disingenuous for you to be entering into the various fields of science with a large stop sign, saying,

STOP! You idiots don't know nothin', I'll tell you how it really was!

based on your religious belief rather than on any scientific evidence.

Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms
A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.

Consider...

The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.

Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.

Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.

Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.

The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.

Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.

This will involve posting the "skulls" photograph that Mamzelle hates so much, so don't tell her, OK?

Hey, skull-man...perhaps you shouldn't read this link and the ones that follow. It seems that your skulls aren't sequential at all, nor are they accurately categorized.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm