Replies

"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.

The fish that are not good swimmers now have defense mechanisms, did your proto-amphib have defense mechanisms? If so what? How would you know from fossil evidence? What a wonderful theory that provides all answers before they are asked!

And when a creationists asks for detailed evidence of preposterous claims made by evolutionists we are told such things were NOT preserved by the fossil record...how convenient.

"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.

Gee I wonder if they have a vested interest?

Gaps between species are filled by....fossil transitional forms! That is all you can demand to be found.

Name one! Give me an identified transitional species between two known and distinct species!

"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.

WRONG! Not only is it closer to some turtles, think of this, they are not even mammals. For reference the book is called "Darwin was Wrong" Put out by some biologists probably 30 years ago, I forget the authors names. Funny thing is that this book kept disappearing from the library stacks at the University I attended. The University would keep buying it, but some (fair-minded) evolutionists must not have liked its utterly damning evidence that micro-evolution does not follow any Darwinian model.

"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."

So what? Mankind sorts and categorizes, that we would based on morphology should surprise nobody. Just because we sort animals into forms and types does not mean they descended from one to the other. You have no idea what so ever if paleo-horses are related in anyway to modern horses. Just the imagination of evolutionary artists.

Tell me if horses got longer and longer legs cause sabertooth was chasing them...how come the tigers didn't get longer legs to catch them?