>The problem with so-called transitional forms is that they are exactly
>what you also say they are.... they APPEAR transitional. There is no
>fact... only interpretation that assumes an evolutionary origin. Even
>granting the few that are anatomically close does not prove the greater
>assumption regarding transition as evidence for macro-evolution. In
>fact, the vast majority of forms contradict it by appearing distinctly
>different in the fossil record. By weight, this is evidence for
>pre-existent creative diversity and against evolution.
>
In point of fact, in rocks that are physically lower than the Devonian, there
is no proven evidence of tetrapods at all. Thus the fact that this sequence
occurs in the uppermost Devonian, prior to the appearance of tetrapods should
say something. Why are there no tetrapods in the lowermost rocks? If you are
going to try to tell someone in Sunday school that your position is correct,
what are you going to say when you are someday asked this question?
Remember, that the prime piece of information concerning the age of a rock is
the rocks which are above and below it.
>To tell a student that there are transitional forms without warning him
>of the consequences of so many that are not is to leave him ill-prepared
>to truthfully learn of such things.
>
I don't understand this.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm