No. Evolutionists say that the Evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record so far."
Not according to your statements. You said that a labrador may end up as the ancestor to an otter in post#250. Clearly your statement means that it is impossible to trace evolution through fossils. It really agrees with some of the statements I have made: that the fossil record does not show enough about a species to be certain of who its ancestors and descendants are. It also agrees with my statement that paleontologists totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want.
No I didn't. You lie! I never said a labrador could end up as an ancestor to an otter. I said:
All living things are potential missing links to some future species. Today's labrador retrievers may be tomorrow's otter-like carnivors, and the only evidence that labradors ever existed might be the discovery of a partial skull by some future paleontologist showing canine type fissures in the palate, even though that future otter-like labrador descended species looks more like an otter or a whale than whatever other terrestrial canines still exist at that future date.
I precisely stated an otter-like carnivore as an example of a common aquatic body-type that land animals seem to acquire when transitioning from land to aquatic species. This would also serve as an illustration for convergence - when two non-related species vying for the same ecological nich, assume the same outward appearance despite their genetic gulf, such as the Ichthyosaurus and the modern dolphin, or the Pliocene's thylacosmilid, which was a saber toothed marsupial which looked very much like the big cat, smilodon, but of course evolved from the marsupial branch, not the mammilian branch.
Clearly your statement means that it is impossible to trace evolution through fossils.
Do you always just make up sentences like the one above, devoid of any meaning. Talk about non-sequiters!
It really agrees with some of the statements I have made: that the fossil record does not show enough about a species to be certain of who its ancestors and descendants are. It also agrees with my statement that paleontologists totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want.
Some species have a sparse fossil record, others have a pretty thorough record, enough to make the case for their lineage through empirical demonstration. No. Paleontologists do not totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want. For sure there are probably some who are intellectually dishonest, but the vast majority are redefining their evolotionary trees with each new discovery of good fossils. Good paleontologists adapt their hypothosis to accurately fit the the evidence as best they can, the way good scientists should and do.
I've noticed that Creationists never offer evidence of their own theory. Wonder why that is?
He said "otter-like animal" not otter. Of course, as your the person who believes platypi are relatives of ducks this distinction is probably lost on you.