Death throes. They know it's over. They are looking for a theory to replace darwinism but, until one comes along, it's either that or creation. Acknowledging a Creator, as our founding fathers did, is beneath their dignity so darwinism is defended against reason.
I do. It's not clear that you have however.
"There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete..."
Yes, so? Such gaps are extremely small -- the hoofed mammal to whale transition is very well filled nonetheless, and consists of a dozen transitional forms ("missing links") that creationists can't explain *at all*, but which undeniably maps out a gradual evolutionary transition from hoofed land mammals to sea-dwelling whales.
If you ran an animation sequence of the fossils, in chronological order, you'd see an unimistakable transformation from primitive cow-like animal to a whale. Only the most dogmatically obstinate would deny it. This is exactly what creationists have asked for when they've gone, "so where are the transitions, huh, huh?"
Deal with it. Or keep your eyes tightly closed, it matters not to me.
Note for the astute reader: Creationists will insist on a transitional fossil between A and B, then when you find one for them (or even a sequence of a dozen), they'll whine that you haven't filled the "new" gaps between the transitions and each other, or the now much tinier gaps near A and B...
Given the speed of species-to-species transitions (from a geological standpoint, anyway), and the fact that they happen in localized areas, and the fact that the species-to-species transitions of modern whales happened within the past couple million years, we're unlikely to find any of their species-to-species transitional fossils unless we start digging up most of the ocean floor. But creationists will continue to say, "oh, sure, you found 20,000 other transitional fossils, but since you didn't find *that* particular one, it's still just a theory..." Sigh.
Look, face it -- according to creationist, there shouldn't be a single transitional fossil between land-dwelling mammals and whales. According to evolution, there should be. What do we find when we look at the fossil record? Transitional fossils, like whales with legs, whales with notrils still on the end of their noses, land animals with many whale-like features and seal-like lifestyles, etc. -- and transitions between the transitions. So which theory is vindicated? Oh, right -- there *aren't* any transitional fossils, I forgot. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, it must simply be denied, right?
So, what were you saying again about me being a liar?
I repeat the charge, and add to it that you're a clumsy dodger. There are transitional fossils. There are thousands of them. When you claim that there aren't, you lie. When shown transitional fossils, you evade dealing with the issue, you dodge.
You must really have alot invested in this theory of yours to be so blinded by it.
Not at all, I just use my eyes to see where the evidence leads. Unlike, um, some other people, who have to pretend (and even falsely claim) that transitional fossils don't exist, when there are literally thousands. How will God view your dishonesty?
You falsely claimed that there were no transitional fossils. Instead, there are thousands. I showed you a dozen in a particular lineage. Should I post another few hundred for you? Or will you just look away again and continue the lies?
I'll pray for you, friend.
I think you need it more than I.