[Jehu]

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?

[bobdsmith]

"The fish that are not good swimmers now have defense mechanisms, did your proto-amphib have defense mechanisms?"
What defense mechanisms do the fish have now?
This is rather besides the point seeing as the first amphibean fossils were fishlike with adapted fins. Unless you are claiming that the fossils are fake, they must have existed and survived.

"Gee I wonder if they have a vested interest?"
now its really getting into the realm of conspiracy theories. How can we even trust NASA landed on the moon when they have a "vested interest" in telling us that?

"Name one! Give me an identified transitional species between two known and distinct species!"
homo erectus between homo habilis and homo sapien (us)

"WRONG! Not only is it closer to some turtles, think of this, they are not even mammals."
I looked up phylogenetic trees based on hemoglobin a and b, and in both primates were closest to humans. While turtles weren't on there, the reptile/amphibean groups that were, were on a different branch. Try as much as I can I cannot find anything on google by searching for "turtle human hemoglobin evolution". If it was a good argument against evolution then it would most likely be online.

"For reference the book is called "Darwin was Wrong" Put out by some biologists probably 30 years ago"
I appreciate the reference but I cannot find anything about this book online either. I will take your word for it though.

"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."
In fact evolutionists usually go around in packs of 5 in libraries so they don't get scared by all the damning evidence left right and center.

"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."
It isn't just a sort based on morphology, the date of the fossil is a large restriction. If a human fossil was found in the cambrian for example then that is common descent done for. No amount of morphology categorisation is going to fix that.

"You have no idea what so ever if paleo-horses are related in anyway to modern horses"
I don't know for sure but there are several things that make it very likely.

-If proto-horses and modern horses are not related, then where did modern horses come from and where did proto-horses go?
It it far to convenient that protohorses disapeared and then suddenly a similar looking beast appears. It makes far more sense that the proto-horses became the modern horses. This accounts for both the disapearance of protohorses, and more importantly accounts for the appearance of modern horses. Especially considering that old modern horse fossils show that they were morphologically different than present day modern horses.

"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?"
I dont know whether that was the reason why they developed longer legs. I doubt it though, it was probably just group behaviour driving it where the slower members didn't get to mate and stuff. Also a long legged tiger would find it harder to sneak up on anything.