Real quick notes.

Linda - How does the whale evidence prove that whales were a different species? The lack of transitional forms is not a "creationist" scheme. Science itself recognizes it and it is why new theories which do not need transitional forms are arising. If you want to argue transitional forms, you can do it with evo and crea alike. Lets start with the whales.

Whale expert (now deceased) E.J. Slijper:‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’

(E.J. Slijper, Dolphins and Whales (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1962), p. 17
Here are some quotes.

Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
(C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89)

The renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record "
(S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140.)

Darwin recognized this when writing his book. Here is an excerpt
"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory"
(C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413.)


Kriminal - You brought up evidence, I refuted it. I don't remember at any point you asking me for evidence. I simplified my refute for you as well, it can be found above. But here you go. The feather. The feather has never evolved. There are different types, that have different purposes. But flight feathers are amongst the absolute earliest fossil discoveries, ahead of dinosaurs. Perfectly (can I use the word "designed") for flight. This would require that Evolution, a brainless, unconcious, nothing, is responsible for the leap of bacteria to aeronautical perfection, and much closer the primordial soup phase than thought. (Longisquama insignis)Also, since it appears before or at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, apparently birds did not evolve from reptiles (the previous theory)


[b] P.S. Russ, please delete my two long posts, this page is loading super crappy. I apoligize to all.