Here we go again. It's been known as long as anything that any offspring is the same kind of critter as his ma & pa. Along came Darwin & co. (actually the crap goes back at least to the Greeks, but nobody made a big deal about it). Darwin up'n says it's different, and all the "higher" animals evolved from the "lower" animals. Who has the burden of proof? Evolutionists, that's who. And after all this time they have nothing but speculations piled upon circular reasoning.

We have a fine example right here with "you do not find horse ancestors in strata above the modern horse." How do we know these fossils are ancestral to the horse in the first place? Because they're buried deeper, right? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> This is just painful Up to a point it can be funny, but I'm past laughing when I see something like this.

Good ol' Wiki can field this one.

I'm not even going to start since it looks off-topic, but fossils aren't always found in the same order. Even so, it wouldn't be evidence for Darwin's proposal. Why? Because Darwin already knew about it and it was part of what he was explaining. The observation that you offer to explain is not itself evidence that your explanation is true. See the link above, seriously.

That's my problem. I just can't stand to see statements like that go unchallenged. I do so admire Russ' restraint. I'm too easily sidetracked sometimes.