Whale evolution without fossils.

[USincognito]

As ever, there is nothing but conjecture. Not a shred of empirical evidence. No one would ever become an evolutionist if he had true scientific scruples and awareness that not one proof is ever offered... sigh

I'm seeing a lot of empty rhetoric and bluster in this post, but I see nary a word of it actually addressing the evidences I presented. Are you unwilling to address them or unable?

 

[Loudmouth]

As ever, there is nothing but conjecture. Not a shred of empirical evidence. No one would ever become an evolutionist if he had true scientific scruples and awareness that not one proof is ever offered... sigh

It is not conjecture that we find fossils with a mixture of terrestrial mammal and modern cetacean features. That is a transitional fossil by any measure.

 

[Winepress777]

It is not conjecture that we find fossils with a mixture of terrestrial mammal and modern cetacean features. That is a transitional fossil by any measure.

You really do believe that don't you. Show that "missing link" that isn't an individually established species. Just one...

 

[lasthero]

You really do believe that don't you. Show that "missing link" that isn't an individually established species. Just one...

What do you mean by 'individually established species'?

 

[Loudmouth]

You really do believe that don't you. Show that "missing link" that isn't an individually established species. Just one...

The scientists are reporting that these fossils have a mixture of features from earlier terrestrial mammals and modern whales. Do you have any information to put this conclusion in doubt? If not, then they are transitional by definition.

You seem to be confusing the terms ancestral and transitional. They aren't the same thing.

 

[The Cadet]

You really do believe that don't you. Show that "missing link" that isn't an individually established species. Just one...

Why would you expect to find this? Species are inherently discreet boxes drawn around what in reality is a continuum. Any given animal will be ordered into some species, or given its own.

 

[High Fidelity]

MOD HAT ON

The thread has been cleaned up.

Please remember to stay on-topic with the topic outlined in the OP. For subjects that deviate too much from the subject matter of the OP, please start a new thread. Not only does that stay within the rules, it also ensures good conversation isn't lost by getting cleaned up.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[USincognito]

I present four evidences for whale evolution, two genetic, one physiological and one embryological.

1. If whales evolved from land mammals we would expect them to have numerous physical characteristics including a mammalian jaw. We indeed find those characteristics one of which is the up and down movement characteristic of mammals in contrast with the side to side movement of reptiles and fish. if whales were specially created they could just as easily move side to side and have a vertical tail fluke as opposed to a horizontal one (see Ichthyosaurs).

2. Cetacean embryos develop hind limb buds that are absorbed (except in cases of atavisms) during fetal development. This is due the interaction of two genes that normally would grow hind limbs (see below). If cetaceans never lived on the land, why do they develop limb buds during the embryonic stage?
Cetacean Evolution: Dolphin Hind Legs - Hind Limb Bud Images, Dolphin Embryo Hindlimb in Fetus Development

3. The sleek, hydrodynamic bodies of whales are due to a broken interaction between the genes Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2. Hand2 normally grows hind limbs in terrestrial mammals. If cetaceans didn't evolve from terrestrial mammals, why do they have the Hand2 gene?
05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida

4. The evolution of cetacean forelimbs into flippers is controlled by two genes - Hoxd12 and Hoxd13.
Adaptive evolution of 5'HoxD genes in the origin and diversification of the cetacean flipper. - PubMed - NCBI

These are just 4 of the many evidences making whale evolution one of the most compelling and supported lineages we can look at.

@Darwin's Myth

I see you presented a request in a closed thread
>> or, the whale evolved from a land animal. Only actual photos of the actual fossils need to apply. <<
And I'd like to invite you respond to my OP, which is quoted and linked to above.

 

[USincognito]

@Darwin's Myth

Oh my. I see you posted a Creationist PRATT.

>> Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The Quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.) <<

Let's leave aside for a moment that the citation for this is from a book printed a year (1978) before Patterson's letter (1979) and note that, Patterson's comments are from 40 years ago. We've made hundreds of discoveries of transitionals since that time. Also, his comments are being mischaracterized by dishonest Creationists.

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.​

 

[Darwin's Myth]

@Darwin's Myth

Oh my. I see you posted a Creationist PRATT.

>> Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The Quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.) <<

Let's leave aside for a moment that the citation for this is from a book printed a year (1978) before Patterson's letter (1979) and note that, Patterson's comments are from 40 years ago. We've made hundreds of discoveries of transitionals since that time. Also, his comments are being mischaracterized by dishonest Creationists.

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.​

It doesn't matter that the quote is from a book from 1978, because the more you look at the evolution lie, the more it stays the same. There are still ZERO transitional fossils. Before a single fossil can be proven to be a transitional fossil, there needs to be an OBSERVABLE transition between many, MANY fossils, showing a transition from one creature into a completely different creature. Realistically, you'd need hundreds of fossils that show a step-by-step transition happening. Evolutionists seem to think, just one fossil can show the incremental steps of a reptile transitioning into an Archaeopteryx.

 

[USincognito]

Hmmm, I notice you completely ignored my evidence from genetics, physiology and embryology. I wonder why that is.

It doesn't matter that the quote is from a book from 1978,

I was pointing out the quote contains a serious error by claiming to be from a book published in 1978 which was the year prior to Patterson's letter in 1979.

because the more you look at the evolution lie, the more it stays the same.

Given your penchant for parroting inane Creationist sayings and PRATTs, I doubt you have actually looked into evolution at all. I mean even your pet mantra de jour is nonsensical. How can a scientific theory be "a lie"? A lie would be claiming I was born in Ireland when I actually was born in Illinois. Unlike you (it seems to me), I actually have looked at the evidence and it's robust and wide ranging. Perhaps you should take the advice of Creationist Baraminologist Dr. Todd Wood.

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

There are still ZERO transitional fossils.

It's quite humorous that you parrot that "evolution is a lie" and yet you keep repeating this lie. Your denial of the existence of the 10s of thousands of known transitional fossils won't make them go away. Merely stamping your feet and shouting, "No!" does not actually address any of them.

Before a single fossil can be proven to be a transitional fossil, there needs to be an OBSERVABLE transition between many, MANY fossils, showing a transition from one creature into a completely different creature. Realistically, you'd need hundreds of fossils that show a step-by-step transition happening.

None of this rambling mess makes any sense. A transitional fossil is one that has the characteristics of two different taxa, most often a basal form and a derived form. Transitional fossils don't even have to be ancestral. A aunt/uncle to cousin species is just a transitional as a parent to child species. Let's do a little experiment. I'm guessing you think that all hominid fossils are "fully ape" or "fully human". How about telling me if this skull is "full ape" or "fully human"?

Evolutionists seem to think, just one fossil can show the incremental steps of a reptile transitioning into an Archaeopteryx.

Yeah, the problem with this claim is that Creationists think that Archaeopteryx is a single fossil (it's not, there are 12 specimens) and that Archaeopteryx is the only species representing theropod*/bird transition. There are proper theropods like dromaeosaurs and troodontids that have similar features to transitional birds and there are plenty of other "birdosaurs" like Confuciousornis and Eoalulavis.

* You might want to start using proper verbiage. Birds are theropod dinosaurs, a subset of archosaurs, which are just one group of reptiles.

 

[pitabread]

There are still ZERO transitional fossils.

Transitional fossils are by definition fossils that contain intermediary physical characteristics between two or more taxa. And those fossils (by definition) exist.

Denying the existence of transitional fossils is denying the existence of those fossils themselves.

 

[Darwin's Myth]

Transitional fossils are by definition fossils that contain intermediary physical characteristics between two or more taxa. And those fossils (by definition) exist.

Denying the existence of transitional fossils is denying the existence of those fossils themselves.

Now that you've made the claim that transitional fossils exist... SHOW me the ACTUAL fossils that prove the reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx (the evolutionists prize fossil). Such fossils, if they exist, should show the incremental, step-by-step transition, so there's no doubt that the Archaeopteryx evolved from a reptile. One fossil will never prove a transition took place. You would need at least a hundred fossils that show a transition took place, transitioning from reptiles to the Archaeopteryx. Drawings, facsimiles, artistic renditions, computer graphics and animations, plastered statues, and empty words, are not evidence for evolution or transitional fossils. Without OBSERVABLE transitional fossils that show that the Archaeopteryx is a product of evolution, it's will remain a unique bird... as unique as the Ostrich, Turkey, and Macaw.

 

[pitabread]

SHOW me the ACTUAL fossils that prove the reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx (the evolutionists prize fossil).

That would be the Archaeopteryx fossil itself. It contains a mixture of characteristics between theropod dinosaurs and more modern birds: All About Archaeopteryx

Without OBSERVABLE transitional fossils that show that the Archaeopteryx is a product of evolution, it's will remain a unique bird

Archaeopteryx is arguably more theropod dinosaur than bird, so much so that certain Archaeopteryx fossils were misidentified as the former.

 

[Darwin's Myth]

That would be the Archaeopteryx fossil itself. It contains a mixture of characteristics between theropod dinosaurs and more modern birds: All About Archaeopteryx



Archaeopteryx is arguably more theropod dinosaur than bird, so much so that certain Archaeopteryx fossils were misidentified as the former.

The Duck-billed Platypus appears to have a mixture of characteristics, too, but that doesn't mean it evolved from ducks, beavers, and gila monsters. Without the many, MANY transitional fossils revealed, that prove the reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx, the Archaeopteryx is just another unique bird. Evolution requires OBSERVABLE, incremental, step-by-step transitional fossils for evidence, and they don't exist. The Archaeopteryx has feathers, so that makes it a bird, nothing more. Now... reveal the transitional fossils that prove otherwise.

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." - Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."- Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

 

[Darwin's Myth]

Hmmm, I notice you completely ignored my evidence from genetics, physiology and embryology. I wonder why that is.



I was pointing out the quote contains a serious error by claiming to be from a book published in 1978 which was the year prior to Patterson's letter in 1979.



Given your penchant for parroting inane Creationist sayings and PRATTs, I doubt you have actually looked into evolution at all. I mean even your pet mantra de jour is nonsensical. How can a scientific theory be "a lie"? A lie would be claiming I was born in Ireland when I actually was born in Illinois. Unlike you (it seems to me), I actually have looked at the evidence and it's robust and wide ranging. Perhaps you should take the advice of Creationist Baraminologist Dr. Todd Wood.

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

It's quite humorous that you parrot that "evolution is a lie" and yet you keep repeating this lie. Your denial of the existence of the 10s of thousands of known transitional fossils won't make them go away. Merely stamping your feet and shouting, "No!" does not actually address any of them.



None of this rambling mess makes any sense. A transitional fossil is one that has the characteristics of two different taxa, most often a basal form and a derived form. Transitional fossils don't even have to be ancestral. A aunt/uncle to cousin species is just a transitional as a parent to child species. Let's do a little experiment. I'm guessing you think that all hominid fossils are "fully ape" or "fully human". How about telling me if this skull is "full ape" or "fully human"?

View attachment 228315



Yeah, the problem with this claim is that Creationists think that Archaeopteryx is a single fossil (it's not, there are 12 specimens) and that Archaeopteryx is the only species representing theropod*/bird transition. There are proper theropods like dromaeosaurs and troodontids that have similar features to transitional birds and there are plenty of other "birdosaurs" like Confuciousornis and Eoalulavis.

* You might want to start using proper verbiage. Birds are theropod dinosaurs, a subset of archosaurs, which are just one group of reptiles.

If I had to guess, I say, those skulls are what evolutionists call the Australopithecus, or possibly Homo habilis... probably some chimp. Now... all you need to do is prove that those skulls aren't the product of another evolutionary hoax, like the Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Orce Man, Lucy, and Piltdown Man... and the list seems endless. Evolutionists are very handy with plaster, animal parts, and metal files.

As for ignoring your "evidence" with the embryology, genetics, and physiology, I just don't need it since you don't have the transitional fossils. Without those, you have nothing. But, as for embryology... if that is anything like the Ernst Haeckel embryo hoax from the early 1900s, it's not worth considering. I've noticed, some of today's biology books are still shoving that fraud down our throats.

BTW... If I were given the legal right to do it... I could take 20 random adult skulls of people whom have died in the last 100 years and make a really believable evolution chart.

As for my verbiage... it's proper for those of us that aren't into evolutionary indoctrination.

 

[Jimmy D]

If I had to guess, I say, those skulls are what evolutionists call the Australopithecus, or possibly Homo habilis... probably some chimp. Now... all you need to do is prove that those skulls aren't the product of another evolutionary hoax, like the Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Orce Man, Lucy, and Piltdown Man... and the list seems endless. Evolutionists are very handy with plaster, animal parts, and metal files.

As for ignoring your "evidence" with the embryology, genetics, and physiology, I just don't need it since you don't have the transitional fossils. Without those, you have nothing. But, as for embryology... if that is anything like the Ernst Haeckel embryo hoax from the early 1900s, it's not worth considering. I've noticed, some of today's biology books are still shoving that fraud down our throats.

BTW... If I were given the legal right to do it... I could take 20 random adult skulls of people whom have died in the last 100 years and make a really believable evolution chart.

As for my verbiage... it's proper for those of us that aren't into evolutionary indoctrination.

There are so many creationist PRATTs in there it’s hard to know where to start.

How about with Haeckel, what was his “embryo hoax”?

I’m assuming that you actually know what the word hoax means....

hoax | Definition of hoax in English by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The Duck-billed Platypus appears to have a mixture of characteristics, too, but that doesn't mean it evolved from ducks, beavers, and gila monsters. Without the many, MANY transitional fossils revealed, that prove the reptile evolved into the Archaeopteryx, the Archaeopteryx is just another unique bird. Evolution requires OBSERVABLE, incremental, step-by-step transitional fossils for evidence, and they don't exist. The Archaeopteryx has feathers, so that makes it a bird, nothing more. Now... reveal the transitional fossils that prove otherwise.

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." - Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."- Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

The Platypus may 'appear' to have a mixture of characteristics, but anyone that has more than a cursory glance at it will note that it couldn't have evolved from ducks, beavers, and gila monsters.

On the Archaeopteryx, because I have no doubt that you didn't even try to read the article you were so kindly pointed to, I'll list for you here all the traits it has in common with Reptiles (after the first 4 items listing the 'Bird' features it exhibited:

Archaeopteryx's reptile features
5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
This is posh talk for "does not have a bill." The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.

6) Trunk region vertebra are free.
In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

7) Bones are pneumatic.​

I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993).

8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds

9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).

10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs. Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not "totally birdlike" (contrary to a certain creationist's claim).

11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface.

12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth.

The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.

14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).
Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.

16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx

17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) . However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.

18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).
This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)

19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
Typical of reptiles but not found in birds

20) Claws on 3 unfused digits.
No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage.

21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.

22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.

Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.

23) Gastralia present.
Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds.
Totally interested to hear you explain why it shares so many more traits with Reptiles than it does with Birds...

If I had to guess, I say, those skulls are what evolutionists call the Australopithecus, or possibly Homo habilis... probably some chimp. Now... all you need to do is prove that those skulls aren't the product of another evolutionary hoax, like the Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Orce Man, Lucy, and Piltdown Man... and the list seems endless. Evolutionists are very handy with plaster, animal parts, and metal files.

As for ignoring your "evidence" with the embryology, genetics, and physiology, I just don't need it since you don't have the transitional fossils. Without those, you have nothing. But, as for embryology... if that is anything like the Ernst Haeckel embryo hoax from the early 1900s, it's not worth considering. I've noticed, some of today's biology books are still shoving that fraud down our throats.

BTW... If I were given the legal right to do it... I could take 20 random adult skulls of people whom have died in the last 100 years and make a really believable evolution chart.

As for my verbiage... it's proper for those of us that aren't into evolutionary indoctrination.

This has been posted many times, so who am I to break with tradition...

Here's a Cranial Capacity chart of all measurable specimens of extinct hominids plotted on a graph of size over time:

I'd like to see you do this with your 20 random adult skulls plotted for cranial capacity against time and get this predictable trend. Remember, you said Random & not cherry-picked to fit your pre-defined narrative.

 

[Darwin's Myth]

There are so many creationist PRATTs in there it’s hard to know where to start.

How about with Haeckel, what was his “embryo hoax”?

I’m assuming that you actually know what the word hoax means....

hoax | Definition of hoax in English by Oxford Dictionaries

The Haeckel is something I've known about for years...
Haeckel fraud proven - creation.com
Haeckel was a huge promoter for Darwin and he did anything to promote the fraud. In this blog, Stephen J. Gould admits that Haeckel's drawings were known to be a fraud from the beginning... https://evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a/

If you're not sure what a hoax is, just look at any evolutionary claim and you've found a hoax.

 

[Darwin's Myth]

The Platypus may 'appear' to have a mixture of characteristics, but anyone that has more than a cursory glance at it will note that it couldn't have evolved from ducks, beavers, and gila monsters.

On the Archaeopteryx, because I have no doubt that you didn't even try to read the article you were so kindly pointed to, I'll list for you here all the traits it has in common with Reptiles (after the first 4 items listing the 'Bird' features it exhibited:

Archaeopteryx's reptile features
5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
This is posh talk for "does not have a bill." The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.

6) Trunk region vertebra are free.
In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

7) Bones are pneumatic.​

I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993).

8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds

9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).

10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs. Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not "totally birdlike" (contrary to a certain creationist's claim).

11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface.

12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth.

The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.

14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).
Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.

16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx

17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) . However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.

18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).
This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)

19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
Typical of reptiles but not found in birds

20) Claws on 3 unfused digits.
No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage.

21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.

22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.

Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.

23) Gastralia present.
Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds.
Totally interested to hear you explain why it shares so many more traits with Reptiles than it does with Birds...

This has been posted many times, so who am I to break with tradition...

Here's a Cranial Capacity chart of all measurable specimens of extinct hominids plotted on a graph of size over time:

I'd like to see you do this with your 20 random adult skulls plotted for cranial capacity against time and get this predictable trend. Remember, you said Random & not cherry-picked to fit your pre-defined narrative.

I really appreciate all the hard work with the copying and pasting from TalkOrigins. com. A lot of imagination and speculation put into it. It's a good way to save wear and tear on your brain. But all of that hard work does not trump the comments from paleornithologist, Alan Feduccia, whom specializes in the origins and phylogeny of birds...
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." - Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."- Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary scientist and bird expert.

The fact is... birds have feathers... dinosaurs don't... therefore, the Archaeopteryx was a bird. The best way to prove the Archaeopteryx was evolved from a reptile is to SHOW the transitional fossils, so that we can OBSERVE the incremental, step-by-step transition of the reptile becoming the Archaeopteryx. You'll only need a hundred transitional fossils to prove it, maybe.