[lasereye]

The Coelacanth illustrates the absurdities of evolutionist fossil interpretation. When the fossils were first discovered it was thought to be extinct. It was deemed a "transitional" based on a bony protrusion that was thought to be a primitive leg forming. It was assumed it enabled the "transitional" to move about a little on land. Then fishermen caught a living Coelacanth. It never goes on land and the bony protusion assists it in swimming. That's all.

Evos always smirk when creationists they say there are no transitionals. They know that there's all these fossils that someone has deemed a "transitional".

[lepton]

While the coelacanth was originally thought to have been extinct, we now know that it’s alive and well and adapted to live deep in the ocean. Off the coast of South Africa, it’s found between 500 and 2,300 feet below the surface. Obviously, this fish so deep in the ocean is far from the possibility of evolving to roam on land.

---

On the other hand, these fossils are so rare that none dating to the past 66 million years have been found, and yet prior to that time, there have been enough found that over 80 species have been identified.

One might also note that the complaints are in reference to theories pondered before the 1930s.

[mountainlion]

Why don’t kids of people that swim a lot develop fins?

[Pez149]

****More Evolution Buffoonery ****
Evolution is Unproven and Unprovable.
Evolution is not based in Science. It’s nothing more than a fairy tale. Long ago and far away....
If any professor in any field of science has proof of Evolution there’s $250,000 waiting for you if you have proof.
It’s been offered for over 25 years with no takers...

[webheart]

The lack of fossil evidence does not prove creation nor does it disprove evolution. It is really hard not to descend to the level of name calling. Whether you believe in creation or evolution is of little consequence. It may not be even a choice. Maybe both are true. It is far more likely that evolution was created than it is that a biblical G dash D created the earth intact 6000 years ago.

[aquila48]

Bookmark

[lurk]

There are genetic walls between the species preventing transition. Slimy things don’t become furry things.

[WASCWatch]

Here is my simple, easy to understand, argument against macro-evolution. For macro-evolution to be true, you must accept that:

1. There was such a drastic mutation of one living animal that had genetic and chromosome changes that became a new species.

2. That there was another exact same change in an opposite sex animal in the same relative location and time.

3. That somehow these two mutated animals survived to adulthood. Extremely unlikely.

4. That the male and female somehow managed to find each other.

5. That they were able to mate and have offspring that survived.

The odds of all this happening are impossibly high. I would say it is 1/∞.