OK Bex, I think I see what you are saying. CTD is wiping my posts apparently because of my comments about Yahya, which I'm going to have to discuss with him individually. In the meantime, in my previously wiped post here, I said that I would look again at your link and pick out one or two specific examples to discuss, when I have a chunk of time later.

As a side note, if you'd said something to me like, "I'd like to know what you make of some of the specific examples on Yahya's site, which you don't seem to be aware give information as well as pictures. Then tell me what you think" -- I would have done so. If people here would just answer my questions, tell me what they'd like me to address, or simply express their own points of view (and correct me where I'm wrong) rather than telling me that I'm misrepresenting them, I think we'd understand each other better.

In the meantime, you said,

Quote
What the fossils do show, regardless of variation/adaption and some changes, is that they are recognisable to the many creatures we still observe to this day E.g. birds, frogs, goats, horses etc are still birds, frogs, goats and horses. The point here is not to dispute the changes that we observe takes place within existing genetic information, lending the variety we see today, which is recognised by creationists - it is however a challenge to macroevolution. Which has not been observed in our day and age, nor so it seems displayed from the past.


You are saying, yes, that any species that exist today, which have changed significantly, must have done so "within existing genetic information."

Can you explain to me how existing genetic information changed mesonychids to a modern whale, or eohippus to a modern horse?