Replies

and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?

Your Natural Selection is just the Politically Correct name evolutionists (who love labels instead of real science) gave to the old adage "Nature red in tooth and claw). The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games.

There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right. All else is just the evolutionist's viewpoint. A dedicated viewpoint that evolution MUST have happened, the alternative (Special Creation) is simply anathema to the evolutionist's mind. If you have a preconceived viewpoint then you will simply interpret any data you find to fit that viewpoint...an action of faith, not science!

The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment. If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so! On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other.

"No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?"
Well fish like that used to exist as shown by fossil evidence. Besides fish that move along the bottom of shallows exist to this day and they have not been all eaten by the real fish that are better adapted to swimming.

"The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games."
It is more the competition for survival to reproduce. I only raised issue with the phrase "survival of the fittest" because when people use it they imply that fitness is determined by strength.

"There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right."
Your opinion. The vast majority of paleontologists and biologists do not share it.

"The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment."
Gaps between species are filled by....fossil transitional forms! That is all you can demand to be found.

"If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so!"
Thats rubbish where did you get that from? Human hemoglobin is closer to primate hemoglobin than any other order of animal.

"On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other."
It's all about burden of evidence. And when similar animals are laid out in a chain of development in the fossil record, rather than being randomly sorted, then it implies change over time. The fact that phylogenetic trees drawn up using genetic data generally match the fossil trees drawn up using fossil data is far too much of a coincidence.