Linear, I have checked out the links to the pictures of what you believe are transitional forms.....and once again I must repeat myself. How can anybody KNOW if they are transitional forms? How do we know that these fossils are in transition from one kind of animal becoming another, rather than being what they are and always were? We can already observe the variation in kinds today, existing at the sametime.... so you are going to have big problems pinning labels of "earlier transitional forms" when you have them existing side by side. Which is why you guys manipulate the fossil findings of the past to fit your theory. Yet even the past is showing little to no change, they are fully recognisable. Evolution starts painting a picture of the past, we are simply told what to believe. They get a fossil, then draw a picture of it's gradual evolution, yet they were not even there to see if this actually happened. Evolutions LOVE extinct creatures, because this allows them to do what they want with the fossils and speak for it. Tell us what it is and how it came to be and what stage of evolution it's in and even match it with something else and make it all look like a process of evolution if they can. They love nothing more than drawing.

We cannot possibly know if it's a transitional form, without having the evidence of fossils going from simple to complex over time, the gradual changes from scales to feathers for example. Can you give me that proof? going from one kind of animal to another. I am not interested in drawings/charts, nor am I interested in fossils being put together deliberately as stages of evolution by the evolutionists. You will find plenty of animals today that share certain characteristics, but this does not mean one kind became anything else. It appears instead, if we are to believe in the fossil pictures I provided, that many of these so called earlier ancestors existed alongside the animals they had supposedly evolved into....so how can they be transitional? E.g. modern day birds do not look much different from the millions of year old fossilised birds....

What on earth does size have to do with evolution Linear? Have you seen what happens in more favourable environments to insects and plants? Notice the tropics and how big things are there in comparison? Notice what happens when life is nurtured into growing bigger because it's been given more nutrition and better environment...and you want to call this evolution? I cannot honestly believe what I'm hearing. If you get an insect in the past and it shows to be bigger than what we see today, not only does this cancel out evolution, but instead shows a deterioration. Greater size/growth back then, to a smaller size now is NOT an increase in information or things improving/evolving. So if someone grows bigger tomatoes today because of what they are using, do you consider this evolution.

I looked at the fossils given and this gives me no evidence of the transitional stages, even if the evolution attempts to place certain fossils in order and then call it evolution. So the nice drawings of it's gradual evolution are cancelled out by the fact they were fully formed then as they are now, and many existed around the sametime. They give a picture of the creature, then give a drawing of how it evolved. This is dishonest. It reminds me of this guy who owned a museum and was asked why there were no fossil evidence of transitional forms, yet it was being preached anyway (with the typical charts showing the evolution process) He admitted priviately and laid it on the line, that there is not one such transitional form that one could make a water tight argument out of and actually could'nt really give any. I could find that quote and repeat it here if necessary. He admitted this privately, and unfortunately for him the letter got out and he was very very embarrassed. His evolutionary colleagues were very UNIMPRESSED with him. But the man was at least being honest when he was cornered.

We have already gone through the legs on snakes senario and once again, the evoutionist assumes they must have been legs, therefore we're to believe they were without really ever knowing or observing this. Just assuming they were. We've had this with the vestigiary organs. The so-called leg like bones inside the whale, tiny as they are, are essential to that particular whale! And he doesn't use them for walking! this has been discussed Linear on here already and i feel like it's going in circles over and over.

Even if you found a snake with legs, how does this assume that it's a transitional form by the way? There are vast variations in life, and something we don't see today that has been dug up from the past does NOT mean it's an earlier transitional form. It does not mean one form became something else. Whether the animal exists today or not. The evolutionist simply cannot accept a creature for being what it is, they continue to say it's a product of evolution and this is what it once looked like (then we get a drawing of the stages of its evolution). I have already said that if the donkey had been extinct, the evolutionist would very likely have placed this as an earlier ancestor of the horse. They are basing this on assumption Linear, it is not based on fact, because we were not there. If the fossil pictures show that the animals then are much the same as they are today, then how can that be called evolution, even if you find certain traits are differing (just as you do today amongst frogs, or any other animal of today), when can CLEARLY see that they were much the same and a turtle was still as much of a turtle then as it is now, as with every other example I gave. We do not see half evolved creatures on their way to becoming something we can recognise. They are fully recognisable as is, because we see the same kind today. Wow, surprise surprise.

How can a dinosaur evolve into a bird Linear? Can you give me proof that scales have become feathers over time? Instead of charts showing me it did. How does a heavy boned dinosaur, evolve into a light boned bird with feathers? Bones are designed for flight, their entire structure is designed perfectly for what they do. How do you reconcile this with a dinosaur? Do you also think that as there are so many different creatures around, that a different species, does not mean it's an earlier ancestor evolving into a modern day bird. Especially when we find that the old birds in the fossil pictures are much the same as the modern day birds now. Once again, assumptions and this is all the evolutionist has.

They fit anything into their theory, no matter what. You guys are so confused, that you cannot tell the difference between growth (plants being bigger, insects being bigger) which we observe and have observed, and one kind of animal becoming something else. You want to label it all evolution, when you know full well what evolution ultimately preaches and by calling the process of growth evolution, you can say "see evolution is real". Nobody disputes growth or variation, but we are talking here about simplicity becoming complexity over time, or one kind becoming another and that is something you guys have failed to prove. Trying to fit it into your belief system is not proof. Drawing up charts is not proof. Giving me a picture of a fossil and claiming it as a transitional form because you say so, is not proof.

You are free to believe it, as this is what your side is preaching and you can take their word for it if you like. I am far from convinced, given that there is no evidence to back up their claims that these animals are in transition. Assumptions, charts do not cut it. Even the pictures provided were a picture of the fossil, but not pictures of it's transitional stages from simple to complex (or what we see today). And lumping certain fossils together and saying this one became that one over time and this is an earlier form from this one is once again, based on mere assumptions and the unseen past.

Quote
No, it is just that a lot of evolution can occur without visible differences, so not seeing any difference does not mean it does not happen. Most of what people think of in evolution are changes that result from hundreds or thousands of smaller changes, changes that are barely noticeable even to trained observers doing no more than looking at pictures. Scientists look deeper than surface appearances, because they have learned to distrust them (we can discuss convergent evolution of sugar gliders and flying squirrels if you want an example).

Once again RAZD, you've proven my point. No matter how little differences are noted, you still assume evolution regardless. Even if given vast amounts of time, even if the changes occured gradually bit by bit over that time period, we should still see much more simplistic life in those fossil pictures, that what we see today. THe fact is, they are fully recognisable, as I said to Linear....how far back can you take us RAZD to show us simplicity has become complexity. If evolution has occured, we would need to see SOMETHING happen. Look, get a picture of me at 12 and a picture of me now, and you'll see a big difference. Though the changes taking place between then and now were over years, they were gradual.

So why is it, we get a picture of all that time ago and there is still NO visible, remarkable difference to now? They have had millions of years and still barely a thing. I wonder whether you guys can consider that evolution may not actually be a fact, but I don't think that's possible. I honestly believe you are so seriously indoctrinated, that it's unthinkable to assume anything else. Even if the fossils themselves defy much change. What is it now? Internal changes, but the outside stayed much the same? How does that work RAZD? Any signficant changes must show at some point, there has to be something, even if those changes take vast amounts of time to occur. I think millions of years is more than enough to show us this took place.