Odd, they've been pointed out to you on other threads, how soon you forget... But to refresh your memory, here's a quick overview of some of the transitional fossils
The same arguments based on homology - the transitional fossils are still missing as even Gould would admit. Here's a quick refutation: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Since new phyla have arisen on Earth only about 35 times in several billion years
Or essentially none in the last 530 million years if you look at a standard uniformitarian time scale.
Before you start waving your hands, remember that there are fossil sequences which, when arranged chronologically, clearly map out small stepwise changes which, when comparing the final part of the sequence with the first part, add up to the rise of whole new groups of animals which did not previously exist.
And those would be? I'm not aware of any transitional sequence of fossils which map out small step-wise changes documenting a process of evolution.
Come see me when it establishes its own new phylum. Then we are talking evolution. Once again we confuse variations (micro-evolution) with macroevolution. Yawn.
This would be the same Eugenie Scott who came on board with the NCSE after she was denied tenure (i.e. was fired) by the University of Kentucky. Maybe she is still bitter after all these years.
Having been in the oil and gas business in the past, the question no one could really answer is how we manage to generate and keep all this methane around for millions upon millions of years. It's never made sense to me and this would go farther to explain it geologically - especially when you look at some of the relatively young geologic ages of the oil producing formations in California. I know this concept has bounced around for a while, but the more I look at it, the more sense it makes.
Does this mean if we looked at the DNA of Henry Ford we would find a V-8 gene? Maybe Thomas Edison had a light bulb gene, even. This stuff just cracks me up.
Hmm - you mean we may not really need millions and millions of years to produce oil and natural gas? That's bad news for OPEC, for sure, and yet another point of contention between the creationists and the evolutionists.