real lifeQuote: Whether you think one creature turned into another different creature over a day, 10,000 years, or 100 million years the point is simply that you do not have sufficient transitional forms to support it, and you do not have an observable mechanism to bring creatures from one type to another (only to change within their own type).
You are either totally unaware of the literarture or else youput on your blinders and ear plugs and deny its veracity. Im curious, how do you explain the existence of diverse forms of life found in limited ranges on specific continents or islands and nowhere else, and appearing at different geological times? Are we undergoing creation now?
Pretty good leap of faith , when youve got absolutely no evidence to back up anything of which you confess. When's the next expedition to the Ararats?
I dont think that you even understand what you are saying, do you confer "typeness" to a species, a genus? family? Whats the latest stretch of credulity ?
The research of Ed Drescher from the Devonian of the the hills of Heiner in the Appalachians and the Devonian of Canada is rather compeling for the transition of osteicthes to amphibians. Lots of key skeletal intermediates showing evidence that the bony fishes of a specific family actually developed walking limbs while a fish, then , within a 10 million year period , fossils of amphibians with similar dentition and eight finger limbs like the ancestral fish had developed, and these wre true amphibians who retained fish characteristics. So many features remained between the bony fish and the amphibians that it reminds one of the 21 or so common features between late Jurassic dromaeosaurs and early bird like reptiles and then reptile like birds (like archeopteryx)
Your AIG resource sites are purposely keeping you hidden from a lot of the ongoing research, much of which is happening right now and most of which had reached solid results stages in the last 5 years. I dont know what youll say when we have even more transitional forms in a few years. (If your ilk is true to form, theyll claim that with all the new intermediates all we have are evn more gaps but with closer and closer morphological features
Your just ill informed and dont want to take time to read, thats too bad. I like to read the Creationist stuff, Its very informative. Even the obviously incorrect material like the "Creationists View of the Grand Canyon" that your people whined and whined until the US Parks Service included the pamphlet in the Bookstore is worth a read .Imagine, its a pamphlet that attempts to lay aside the garage loads of stratigraphic and structural and paleo work thats been done on the CAnyon by real scientists who only carried into the field a desire to understand the workings of the system in nature. They had no preconceived notion to prove or disprove a Creationist viewpoint. Hows that for hypocrisy on your sides behalf/ .
