Replies

That's it? That's your obesrvable evidence? And you're gonna rest your entire theory on a mere 200 alleged exaples? Darwin claimed that there would be thousands of such examples! Your 200 finds are but 1/100th of the fossil record. Actually, the number of transition examples should be almost as many at the fully mutated variety.

Those are just the vertebrates. (Admittedly, vertebrates fossilize better than do a lot of the invertebrate life forms. Nevertheless, there's a growing fossil records for invertebrates including protozoans.)

What's so "iffy" about the two hundred examples I gave you that you can excuse dithering between "not ONE" and "just ONE?" Discredit an example for me:

A comparision of Eusthenopteron, a lobe-finned fish, with Acanothostega, an early amphibian:

A Comparision of their skulls.

What's an amphibian doing with a fish head?

A Framing Narrative from Glenn R. Morton, recovering Young Earth Creationist.

Splain this...

The Cleaner fish lives in a certain variety of brightly colored coral that is attractive to the barracuda. The barracuda swim over to this coral and hover with their mouths open while the CleanerFish swims into his mouth and feeds on the bacteria that are on the barracuda's teeth. The barracuda allows this to happen and doesn't eat the cleaner fish. Without this activity, the teeth of the Barracuda would rot out and kill it and the Cleaner Fish wouldn't survive.
Splain how the barracuda "evolved" this behavior of alowing fish to swim in thier mouths and not eating them.
OR, how the Cleaner Fish learned to swim in the mouths of larger fish, knowing they wouldn't be eaten.
Or, how the barracuda learned which type of coral to hover near.

All of these traits had to mutate in these organisms at the same time or this phenomena would bot be happening today. Swimming into the mouth of a larger fish is not what is termed "survival of the fittest". Allowing fish to swim in your mouth without eating them is not "survival of the fittest". This is a great example of intellegent design and refutes the evolutionary theory.

Even if these events were to have mutated silmultaniously, these mutations would have had to breed offspring with the same mutations and they would have had to interact only within the the mutated relationships...for instance, if the mutated Cleaner Fish treid his teeth-cleaning stunt in a non-mutated barracuda, he'd be lunch...end of that evolution! Can't happen. Didn't happen.

Evolution is a theory, not fact. And those that hold to it fail to realize that their belief that it is fact is based upon thier faith...faith that there isn't a Creator God. If there is a God, then they aren't Him and are under His reign. This is the core issue with most (not all) evolutionists...submission.

God loves you. His burden is easy and light. Turn to Him and be saved.

...it's lightning...gotta go for now...

baa

Why do some mammals lay eggs? Why do some reptiles give live birth? So? There is little doubt that all species have evolved ...physically in particular but the essence of this argument is about the origins of life or more precisely...mankind. School is still out on that subject insofar as I know. Both schools of thought here are basically theories which cannot be "proven". One is based on an examination of patterns being revealed as our technology and discoveries improve and the other is based on faith in a written word that a number of us have chosen to ascribe to. These two schools of thought do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

"What's an amphibian doing with a fish head?"

One could say the same thing about various automobiles over the years, yet it wasn't the cars per se which evolved, but rather the DESIGNERS of the cars evolved.

Likewise, seeing the same DNA code (i.e., same skull) re-used in two different species isn't evidence that one species evolved into another so much as it is evidence that the designer of the two species had a reason to re-use some of his old DNA code.