Well, I have looked at the link many times, and unfortunately I don't have the time to go into the details of the problems with each of these speculative transitional forms. Pick a couple of your favorites if you like and I'll tell you why the assumptions are not scientific and why they are based on speculation and presupposition.
Archaeopteryx and Rodhocetus will do.Good thing I wasn't holding my breath.
Yet another creationist is shown to be unable to back up his assertions.
My most humble apologies for the delay... I have much more important things to spend my time on. I appreciate the fact that you have provided some simple species to look at. As for
Archaeopteryx, using your favorite website for misinformation, the
ancestors of Archaeopteryx are the Ornithopoda, the Pseudosuchia and the Sphenosuchidae. Could you please tell me which one you
believe to be the
father of Archaeopteryx and point out the list (as long as it may be) of changes required to bring about Archaeopteryx? According to a recent
news release from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the whole "dinosar-to-bird" theory is full of holes...
The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’
As for
Rodhocetus, that was easy, once again relying on your favorite source, we have
this statement relating to Rodhocetus:
There are still no known species-species transitions
So it appears we have nothing BUT speculation and presupposition to base this species on. That was way to easy... Although I was absent for a while, I managed to do this in about 10 minutes of "research". If these are your best examples, I would consider changing religions. Have a great day!