Hello RAZD,


It is very much the issue. The fact is, we have not seen evolution take place, nor has it been observed from fossils themselves, yet you conclude that it happened anyway and then expect me to believe the same because "you guys say so". You have all come up with the most pathetic excuses possible, in an attempt to explain why the fossils show no sign or little signs of change. Totally recognisable for what they are and what they have continued to be (whether fish, amphibian, spider, tiger).

As I said before, evolutions excuse is - so slow we didn't observe it. So fast we missed it. Or it came in bursts. Even if this all happened in the manner you have suggested, from then till now, no matter how the process occured, there should and WOULD be SOMETHING as a testament to this fact and there isn't.


lol! Even if the coelacanth is another species of fish, how on earth does this rule out that all these things have shown no sign of simplicity becoming complexity? Whether fish, other marine life, whatever it is, fully formed and most of what I provided is much the same or identical as the same today. And you're quibbling over a fish.....I wonder how you manage to blanket out the rest in the process and then convince yourself that if it's another species of fish, this means it's an earlier transitional form - even though by all signs, it's a fish! IT's not something becoming something else.

The thing is, I do not need to prove a thing, the pictures have already given clear testament to the lack of evolution all by themselves. Clearly the information is already present to give themselves the appearance of what they were then, to what they continue to be now. Without that information, their externals would reflect this and be evident that they were incomplete.