True but some features are unique to reptiles or to mammals or to birds.
>Agreed. Darwinist `blind watchmaker' macro-evolution needs more
>than a handful of "morphological intermediates" to prove its point.
There are never enough intermediates to satisfy you ? When will it be
enough ? Given the problems of fossilization, the possibility of
regionally
restricted development make it remarkable that so many intermediates have
been
found.
>It has to also explain the systematic *absense* of "morphological
>intermediates" where it most needs them and the pervasive *stasis*
>that characterises the fossil record. Since `blind watchmaker'
It needs the intermediates where there are none found yet. To focus on the
absence of evidence rather than on the presence of evidence is not very
useful. Stasis in the record is not a problem for darwinism either. Even
Darwin
speculated about the possibilities of stasis followed by rapid change.
>macroevolution required countless intermediate forms, a relatively
>small number of intermediates is more consistent with a
>progresssove mediate creation than naturalistic evolution:
Except what you consider a small number is not necessarily so. Why not
focus on what has been found and what is supporting evolution rather
than the evidence which has yet to be found ?
>Not in an absolute sense. But the argument is still perfectly valid
>in a *relative* sense. The modern creationist argument should not be
>there are *no* transitional forms but there are *not enough*
>transitional forms. It is only YEC that needs to argue the former
Indeed, you find one transitional and there are two gaps to fill.
Extrapolating this idea reveals that the more transitionals are found,
the more are lacking. Of course this requires ignoring the evidence
found in support.
Regards
Pim