Jim,
I honestly don't see how the embryological data contradicts the pattern we
see in the fossil record. You say that we should see thousands of
transitional forms. O. K. But developmental biology has shown that these
massive changes may only require a few mutations to achieve the goal. Not
the millions of mutations that classical Darwinism had believed and which
creationist literature still believes. Developmental biology would predict
that the fossil transitions should be chimaerical creatures with parts
looking like the ancestor and parts looking like the descendant. This is
what we find in the fossil record even in the case of Ambulocetus. Both
parts of science fit together.
Now I have answered your question. How about answering mine? What data (as
opposed to old quotes) can you present to show that evolution must produce
thousands of transitional forms? And how does that fit into the hierarchical
nature of genetics which has been observed?
glenn