Quote
As usual, long on verbiage, short on evidence for anything.

Out of a full refutation of the whole site you linked to, the best you can do is pick semantically about whether or not teeth are bones. The points you were trying to make above were refuted there too, with links, but let's conventiently ignore those, right?
Let's waste my time debunking every last stupid evoclaim, Right? Let's never get around to any nitty-gritty discussion of anything.

I looked at those links. Here's one.
Quote
The echinoid Micraster shows one of the best examples of an evolutionary series among the invertebrates
They claim this is the best they've got. What do they do?
Quote
Tests were made upon each of these ten sets of measurements to determine their accuracy and reproducibility. After a consideration of the results of these tests, three of the ten measurements were rejected.
How in the world does one need to test for "reproducibility" of measurements!? The waste a bunch of time & words, and basically say they had specimens of different sizes and proportions. Big deal! There's no new feature; no transformation; no evidence of anything approaching a change into something different. And that's their "best" series.

At one point they discuss two species and conclude
Quote
It is suggested that the differences between the species are due to their occupying different ecological niches. These differences are not considered great enough to warrant placing the two species in separate subgenera.
Their grand demonstration of evolution in action can't even be classed as a separate subgenus.

How effective your evogoggles must be if you think this "best case" is sufficient to even put on the table as a refutation of Fred Williams' writing. This typical evosite is better and more entertaining than anything your source listed. They have several pictures of fossils side-by-side with living specimens. They think this implies life itself is all the evidence one needs to believe in evolutionism. None of the examples show the type(s) of change imagined by evolutionists - just the opposite. They show stasis. But if one assumes this is "evidence of evolution", it's all the evidence required, right?

The exact same type of "evidence" and reasoning is employed by the links your evoliar provided, but it lacks pictures. The quality of writing is not very high either, and it's a chore to read.

But the chart and article are both correct. 99%+ of the fossil evidence is utterly useless for the evolutionist cause. Stasis is everywhere and "transitionals" are absent. This is the true pattern found in the record. The evidence is overwhelming.
Quote
The geologist in the second link does indeed talk about the macrofossils. He says they are probable evidence of reworking.
Totally incorrect. Nowhere in the article does the author say this.

If he did it would be circular. You define anything out of place as evidence of reworking in and of itself. The fact that it fails to meet your expectations is all the evidence you think you need to prove it must have been reworked. You assume your fantasy is true, and overtly employ faulty reasoning in order to bend any and all evidence to fit.

Quote
There is a link at the bottom of that page to another site where there are pictures of reworked fossils and the area in which they were found.
So what? These are not on Woodmorappe's list, are they? Are you saying because some fossils have been reworked we should assume all fossils have been reworked?

Quote
Let's see now. We know that fossils exist in rock. We know that rock gets eroded. Ergo, when fossil-bearing rock is eroded, the fossils are dislodged and wherever they go, be it on the ground or in a lake or something else, they are no longer in situ. It's impossible to claim that this doesn't happen because it would be akin to claiming that erosion doesn't happen. So how do we determine whether we are looking at a reworked fossil?
Why don't you explain this one. How indeed do you "determine" that a fossil has been reworked? How does one determine if it's found "in situ" by the LindaLou evospeak definition of the term?

I defy you to define this as anything other than "in situ = where evolutionists imagine it should be" and consistently apply the definition.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson