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?
Clearly your statement means that it is impossible to trace evolution through fossils.-me-
Do you always just make up sentences like the one above, devoid of any meaning. Talk about non-sequiters!
Noooo. My statement directly follows from your statement about convergence. Evolutionists have always said that if it looks alike it is proof of ancestry. However, if you are going to say that things that look alike can have completely different ancestries, then you cannot prove evolution through fossils because we can never know whether the similarites are due to ancestry or convergence.
Let me also note, that to anyone who bothers to read Darwin, one will see that the only arguments he makes for evolution are based on homology - same functions, same looks are due to common ancestry. So you have put your foot in your mouth with your double-talk. Heck, if two species looking similar means either homology or convergence how can you tell if one is an ancestor of another? Because your theory needs a missing link? Because you say so? Because you invoke the ghost of Darwin and he tells you the correct answer? Inquiring minds want to know.