Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Budikka) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> > so once again, we can say, that defintion of what not or might be is
> > dependant on the science discpline at hand.
> > sound like a budikka colossal mhole to me.
> 
> Once again your demonstration of just how colossal the holes are in
> your education and competence is staggering.

sure.. sure..
> Once again, let me ask you a question that you have in the past
> avoided.  When the World Trade Center towers were knocked down two
> years ago, there was disagreement about the precise mechanism that
> actually brought the main towers down.  Does this mean they never fell
> down?  Answer the question.

actually no. more so the process can be duplicated..

next question?

>> 
> Transitional species are to be expected and have been found in
> abundance despite the limits of the fossil record.  Genetic links
> between species have been found.

Not true, assumption that they might be transsitional is another
remade Disney story, the fact is that nowhere in the fossil record are
found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the
beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various
types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According
to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional
ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There
is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks
two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any
fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any
fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish
fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking
for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a
fruitless quest.

 New Scientist noted that evolution "predicts that a complete fossil
record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change
continuously over long periods of time." But it admitted:
"Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for
individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by
known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear
not to evolve even over millions of years." And geneticist Stebbins
writes: "No transitional forms are known between any of the major
phyla of animals or plants." He speaks of "the large gaps which exist
between many major categories of organisms." "In fact," The New
Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, "the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.".

 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society
of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor
of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120
scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work
of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals
divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of
plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from
all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear
suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates,
elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first
appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor,
much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore
added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record
very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at
all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions
between plant kinds have never occurred."

 Thus, what was true in Darwin's day is just as true today. The
evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D'Arcy Thompson
said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: "Darwinian
evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals
from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from
the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the
gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever."


Snipped the usual non-informational rant................

of course we now await on your critique on "new scientist", they just
wrote an article, of how the assumption of the evolution of plants
is......wrong...
another one to throw into your "hole" basket..