Creationists continue to claim there are no transitional fossils (which is not true) and will ignore any evidence presented to them regarding the same. So, what about the DNA evidence that supports evolution? And, what about Francis Collins (a christian) who led the Human Genome Project and his stance below?
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf
Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwins theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didnt know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics
What about the DNA evidence, it merely shows what we have been telling you all along, no upward tree branching into multiple species. merely sideways variation (kind within kind).
Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated'
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
"I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree, he says. The technique just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution."
But you will continue to declare all is fine in evolution, when the molecular biologists seem to want to continually rewrite the tree, because it shows no upward branching. It shows only sideways variation, something you should have predicted since it has been observed with your very own eyes in cats and dogs which we changed within several generations, yet are still cats and dogs.
Your transitory species are not transitory, are in several instances merely the young of other dinosaur.
Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs - YouTube
And in all other cases either clearly wrong, when living examples are found:
"Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants." Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?" Walking fish that don't walk, man you guys will say anything in an attempt to prove your Fairie Dust theory.
or, when proper study is done they once again show how false your theory is:
"Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth". Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive". "Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390. "Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird." "The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin's Origin of Species was published. This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory." "Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found." "Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution." But "bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs". "Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs." "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say. "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news release.
What evolutionists now know for sure is that their celebrity superstar was not a transitional creature after all."
The rest are just pieces of bone fragments rarely found close together that you imagine an entire species out of. You are mistaking variation within kinds as evolution, when the fossil record and the DNA evidence does not support your evolutionary tree. Face it, evolution went extinct.
