lets see you swim across this nearly million square kilometer 'puddle'.
You have a strange definition of the word puddle.
>Again, it appears to me that we are no further forward regarding the
>matter of the missing transitional forms than was Charles Darwin. As I
>suggested in my last communication, I believe the very concept of an
>'intermediate' is flawed - and the fact that undisputed examples are
>missing from the geologic column (where they should be found in
>abundance!) comes as no surprise. Can you really imagine that a fin on
>the way to becoming a leg offers an advantage to a fish - a creature so
>perfectly tailored to its environment?
Yes, if the water is shallow and the protofoot is able to push off the
water bottom to help it catch prey, yes, that would be beneficial. Why
would that not be helpful? BTW that is exactly the use they think
Acanthostega had for his half evolved leg. From my web page:
363 MYR- Acanthostega- has four legs, lungs but still has internal gills.
(Coates and Clack , 1991, p. 234) He has 8 digits on his front leg; seven
on his back feet. (Carroll, 1995, p. 389) His legs could not support his
weight either. (Coats and Clack, 1990, p. 66-67). Ahlberg (1991, p. 301)
points out that the front legs were more fish-like than the back legs. He
has fishlike lower arm bones (Coates and Clack 1990, p. 67). Once again,
contrary to Gish (1978, p. 79), these are still half-evolved legs. He also
retains a caudal fin (Coates, 1994, p. 175) and an elongated tail with fins
stretched out along the top. (Carroll, 1995, p. 389). The stapes, the bone
which eventually became part of the hearing apparatus in tetrapods was
still used for ventilation of the gills (Clack,1989, p. 426).
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/transit.htm
I suggest that evolutionists are
>too ready to forget the necessary gap in time and see the alleged
>'finished product', viz an amphibian.
>
>I don't believe you'll ever be rid of either of these logical
>'millstones'.
And you anti-evolutionists are unwilling to give us an explanation for why
things are as they are. This means that the evolutionists appear to be
more creative and knowledgeable than the creationists.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm