Quote
Quote
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?
That requires a great deal of study. There isn't just one thing that can answer this question because the conclusion is drawn from many pieces of evidence. For Tiktaalik roseae just a small part of the evidence includes:
1. Scientists chose where to look (geologic layer, past environment, etc) based on other fossils that were tetrapods (amphibian-like animals) later in the geologic column and lobe-finned fish earlier in the geologic column.
They know where they have to find "transitionals" because when they show up in the wrong place like Archaeopteryx, it doesn't help their situation.

Quote
3. If all the different organisms that exist as fossils in the geologic column were created at the same time (in the beginning) then Adam would not have had room to breathe...much less lay down and go into a deep sleep.
We need a showcase. That's all there is to it. This has got to be a contender for the record.

Quote
Quote
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.
You are assuming that evolution is supposed to occur to all the population of an organism, causing the previous species to disappear. What part of evolution states this? What aspect of the mechanisms of evolution, variation among individuals in a population combined with environmental pressures, cause you to believe that the rise of a new species requires the destruction of the old species?
Ask Darwin. Or think. Selection = "Death to the Unfit".

Quote
Which is why you guys manipulate the fossil findings of the past to fit your theory. (Translation: Evolution Scientists know that the theory is wrong yet they monkey with the evidence to make it look like evolution is true, because they are all liars in a big conspiracy)

Quote
Yet even the past is showing little to no change, they are fully recognisable.
An explanation of why this can occur has been provided to you. Refute the explanation. Repeating the same statement does not make it more true.
Why refute "because we say so"? You forget who has the burden of proof.

Someone has undertaken to demonstrate that a vast record of stasis demonstrates the transfomation of "primitive" life into all the life on the planet, past & present. So much stasis hardly works in favor of this story.

Quote
Quote
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.
Drawings are used in textbooks and shows on tv because they simplify explanations. You are again accusing evolution scientists of lying and deceit. It might be a good idea to back up your accusation with a little more evidence than context-less photographs of fossils.
I don't see this accusation, unless you mean they've employed extrapolations & reconstructions based on fantasy to deceive themselves...

Quote
Quote
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.

Right after you tell me what characteristics a "true" transitional should have. Obviously, the ones I provided did not meet with your stringent criteria. That puts the onus on you to provide a detailed description of what a transitional creature is.
Can't speak for others, but I've covered this in my "Cracking Down" thread.

Quote
Quote
I am not interested in drawings/charts, nor am I interested in fossils being put together deliberately as stages of evolution by the evolutionists.
Again with the accusation of deceit.
Looks like I see a confession that such practices are deceitful.

Quote
Your "E.g" does not match your question. However, as I said earlier, no part of the theory of evolution requires the rise of a new species to eliminate the entire species that it came from.
As Darwin himself said, it does.

Quote
Since the mechanism of evolution is environment controlled, one population of a specific species might change in a particular environment while the rest of the species in a different environment would remain relatively unchanged.
Darwin allowed for few exceptions. The fossil record does not match.
Quote
For your "E.g.", no part of the theory of evolution requires that populations change significantly over time, especially if the environment remains relatively unchanged. Why do you think the theory implies otherwise?
Maybe because evolutionists have admitted this is a big problem? But perhaps you & RAZD know better?

Quote
Quote
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.
They were unimpressed with him because he had very little understanding of biology but believed that he did understand it. He was poorly educated about transitional species and the recognition of such, yet he spouted off about how there are none.
Good one! If I smile much bigger my face'll crack. I know, he was supposed to explain that "all species are transitionals, so they're all over the place"... what a hoot! Faulting a man for failing to lie.

Quote
That's like someone saying he's a Bible scholar but doesn't understand Paul's explanation of the mechanism of salvation (Roman road). I am sure you would say that he is deluding himself concerning his Bible knowledge.
Another false analogy? Wonder how this'll play out...

Quote
Quote
Even if you found a snake with legs, how does this assume that it's a transitional form by the way?
The Bible says God took away the snake's legs. Since, according to Young Earth creationists, there were no deaths prior to the snakes losing their legs, how can we have a snake fossil with legs?
Which snake? All snakes?

But you fail to answer the question.

Quote
Quote
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.
Several facets to this statement. Hmmm.
An accusation of dishonesty or stupidity on the part of the scientists who should know their chosen field of study
Actually that's an astute historical observation of a pattern, and a prediction that the pattern would hold. Not a risky prediction at all.
Quote
Statement that the idea of evolution came about before any facts were studied. You have evidence of this accusation?
Restatement of the "we can't know the past, because we weren't there". My rebuttal:
1. Therefore we cannot prosecute criminals without video/photographic evidence of them committing the act.
2. Therefore, we really don't know if Washington was at Valley Forge, we weren't there.
3. Therefore, we don't know if the Holocaust happened or not, we weren't there and the "records" have been handled by too many people, and we can't know if they were tampered with.
4. Therefore, we can't know that Christ died on the cross, for our sins.
Nonsense. There have always been valid methods of investigating history. I've a thread on that subject. But evolutionists don't often employ them. In fact, many are very opposed to investigating history from what I've seen.

Quote
Quote
How can a dinosaur evolve into a bird Linear? Can you give me proof that scales have become feathers over time?
There was an experiment that some scientists did (reported on the Discovery Channel) where they changed the gene expression on chicken embryos and resulted in feathers instead of scales on the chicken's feet. I will try to find the research papers involved. However, this shows that a small change in gene expression (mutation) could result in a large overall change (fully formed feathers instead of scales).
Then they should have no problem getting lizards to grow feathers - just alter the gene the same way.

Or not. Tricking a feathered creature to grow extra feathers might just be different than tricking a non-feathered creature to somehow produce them from scratch.

.............

Now for further amusement, I present a Crocodilian Mystery.
Quote
Temperature-dependent sex-determination has been reported for all extant crocodilians. We present information about incubation temperature effects on incubation period, sex ratio, hatching success, and hatchling survivorship during the first year of life for Caiman latirostris. Incubation period was negatively related to temperature. Sex of hatchlings were related to incubation temperature. Only females were produced at 29°C and 31°C, only males were produced at 33°C, and both males and females hatched at 34.5°C. Hatching success and survivorship were unaffected by incubation temperature.
Can be confirmed pretty easily.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Crocodile-Sex-is-not-Hotter-with-Global-Warming-41214.shtml
http://www.nepa.gov.jm/yourenv/biodiversity/Species/crocodile.htm
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/973

But considering all the drastic climate changes, there's no handy explanation for crocodile survival. It only takes a small change for them to lose the capacity to reproduce one sex or the other. No males born for enough years = no more crocs. Or no females.

Used to be they had an easy out: they hadn't confirmed in all croc's that temperature is so important. But they can't hide behind ignorance any longer. Temperature also plays a huge role in their digestion, and they have to conserve energy because of this.
Explaining it away
Quote
Evolutionary theory suggests a species can't survive without maintaining a rough numerical parity between the sexes. If weather determines sex in alligators, couldn't an especially hot or cold year produce greatly skewed sex numbers— too many females and too few males, for example— and create an evolutionary disadvantage? Strangely enough, alligators do not appear to be handicapped by temperature-dependent sex determination. Scientists think nest temperatures determine sex for all 23 species of crocodilians on the planet, and it seems to work for them too. "If all crocodilians have this characteristic," Lang says, "then it must be adaptive."
There's more, much more. But no real answer beyond "it must have happened".

The lifespan of a crocodile is peanuts in evotime. The climate changes imagined are a real problem, and the only "solution" is to assume evolutionism's true. The evidence is pretty easy to understand, and if the fantasies about the past were true, there'd be no crocodilians left.

The croc's still considered the "closest living relative" to T-Rex, btw. Feathered versions notwithstanding.

And other reptiles have their sex determined by temperature as well. But hey... once we have the "it must have happened" principle up & running, it can handle the rest just as easily and effectively.

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