So it’s your contention that there is no evidence that mammals evolved from fish, albeit with many intervening steps? The evidence that fish are older than lobe-finned fish, which are older than amphibians, which are older than animals that could lay their eggs on land, which are older than animals that have characteristic mammalian structures...you reject all of that?
And furthermore, you claim that there is evidence for intelligent design that meets a higher standard than the above? Care to give an example?
Nope, but it's not scientific evidence of transference between the two groups.
evidence for intelligent design that meets a higher standard than the above? Care to give an example?
Start with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Evidence of purposeful and intricate design is evidence of a Designer.
How much time do you allow yourself to move from lobe-finned fishes (remember we have found extant Latimerius in the Indian Ocean...many, many specimens)-to amphibians to amphibians/reptiles which are terrestrial egg-layers, all the way to mammals? Please explain how a coelacanth demonstrates 'evolution' to a mammal. I mean, you can say it, but how do you explain it, remembering that homologies are not the method of change.....it occurs at the level of the nucleotide base, not at the level of the change in metatarsal, metacarpal, carpal, phalanx ontology.
If you want to explain the theory it seems you must go back to the beginning....to the original organism which allegedly gave rise to every organism which has ever existed. If you cannot get the original organism how do you get the second? Then you can make the case for Decent or neodarwinism.