Are there transitional fossils?

[Jimmy D]

You forgot the tower of Babel, where all of mankind after the flood had been gathered together, and where the diversification of religion and races began. You know, when each was separated.

Right, so I did. How long ago do you believe this happened?

Of course you happened to forget that every one of those religions have a flood mentioned. But like any story told by word of mouth it changes over time. Which is why the Hebrew were so careful in transcribing. Their is continuity, in almost every religion, its just name and small details that vary. Whether it was Christ nailed to the cross or Odin to the tree. Wether it was eight people on an ark or Gilgamesh on a boat.

What? I see your history isn't your strong point. No matter, we got distracted from the topic.

 

[Jimmy D]

This thread is about transitional fossils which you have yet to show one

Doubtingmerle has shown plenty, even on this page.... as defined by paleontologists and biologists.

You keep accusing me of refusing to accept scientific definitions yet do the same yourself. Your opinion on their status is irrelevant.

Hypocritical.

 

[AV1611VET]

There goes this thread.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is, you just refuse to accept that none of those fossil creatures exist today, that's why they are extinct.

Excuse me, but I have said multiple times here that animals like Hyracotherium and Tiktaalik no longer exist. When I say these things repeatedly, please do not accuse me of saying the exact opposite.

Again, the point is that the fossil record shows nothing of the mass extinctions in which every animal on earth was wiped out at the same time and new life was later created. That is an old belief known as Catastrophism that has been refuted long ago. (Creationists sometimes link flood geology to Catastrophism to give their belief some kind of historical credibility, but they are very different.) I haven't heard it for years until you started bringing it up on this thread. Although major extinctions have occurred in the past, none wiped out everything. See chart below:

Did you read your own paper? It clearly stated there was a mass extinction that affected all the large animals.

It is referring to the extinctions of many large mammals that occurred about 10,000 years ago. Yes, that happened, and was most likely caused by humans that had developed the ability to kill large animals in the safety of numbers from a distance. Large animals that were remote from the origins of humans did not have an innate fear of humans, so they watched calmly as humans approached to kill them (e.g. the dodo bird).

Perhaps this is why cheetahs bottlenecked. A few survived, perhaps because these few were unbelievably fast and could get away. What is left are cheetahs that are virtually identical, and are the fastest land animals on earth.

Yet see no problem with naming all the subspecies in the fossil record as separate species...... even if we did that with the dog we would come to the wrong conclusions about its lineage......

Uh, no, as I explained before, most of the fossils are identified by genera, which is a step above species. As I explained before, it would be difficult to tell from old fossils if one specimen was a different species from another, but where there is substantial difference (such as between Eohippus and Orohippus), they are called different genera. The many fossils in the horse series are identified as different genera.

And the next evolutionist that does extensive research will publish papers to promote his new idea....... which will conflict with this extensive research........ and then you'll be extolling the virtues of the new idea as truth, without thinking that what you believe as truth now would no longer be true, even if you are promoting it as true right now......

I will?

Uh, no actually that is not how science works. People constantly publish papers that conflict with previous papers, yes. But when that happens, we do not simply throw out the old paper and go with the new. Where we see conflicts, we seek to find out why, and seek to determine how the two findings fit together. We set out to verify with other experiments which is right, or if some combination of the two is right, and where the other conclusion went wrong.

We will see how this "truth" pans out over time, since almost everything they claimed as "truth" 50 years ago has been overturned...... every generation thinks what it believes is true, and the next generation falsifies it and believes what they believe is true, and on and on and on throughout history.....

It has?

I was in 5th grade 50 years ago, and most of what I learned about science back then is still regarded as true.

However, I am not sure if the things you learned about science in 5th grade are still regarded as true (or ever were). Just saying.

Darwin believed those Finches were reproductively isolated, that wasn't true.

Oh dear, Darwin didn't know which finches were mating with which finches on the Galapgos. So what? After all, they weren't breeding right under his nose. How could he have known that?

In fact, as far as your paper is concerned, I don't think it mentions one time where two species of finches (you call them sub-species) ever bred in the wild in front of anybody's nose. Instead, what we did was study DNA, and found that there must have been some interbreeding. Darwin would not have been able to do that.

Named them separate species based upon a false belief.

You are arguing semantics.

To scientists, "species" is a gray area, and there are sometimes debates on where to draw the line. You insist that we should not use the term "species" as defined by scientists, and insist everybody should use your definition, but it is not clear what your definition is. Would you please formally state the definition of species that you are so firmly entrenched on? Page after page you have argued that scientists should switch to your definition of species, but sadly, you have not yet stated clearly your definition of species.

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept as truth everything they claim is truth, or that you believe is true.

You are excused.

I excuse anybody who thinks I am occasionally mistaken. After all, I am occasionally mistaken.

Apparently you will accept falsehoods just because they tell you to, even if the evidence is against them.

Ad hominen.

 

[xianghua]

Not all spinning motors evolve naturally.

so some kinds of a spinning motors can evolve naturally?

 

[xianghua]

Why are these all part of a long series of fossils show a clear transition from one state to another.

why all those cars show the same?:

ferrari evolution‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

 

[xianghua]

Only an evolutionists sees a clear line of fossils from the dolphin like creature to the whale like creature, but that's probably why every single one of your claimed original ancestors is missing, huh?.

its just geting worse:

Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica

if its true then the first whale appeared before its suppose ancestors (again like the tiktaalik example).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Excuse me, who is ignoring scientific definitions? I posted two lengthy links showing the scientific definition of species, and how there is a whole lot of gray area when defining species.

And I asked you what gray area you find so hard to comprehend with finches interbreeding right in front of their noses, to which you chose to never respond.

You have not posted one single definition accepted in science that said that every ancestor of a dog should be regarded as a member of the dog species. You have not posted one single definition accepted in science that said all descendents of a common ancestor must be regarded as the same species. You have not posted one single definition that said that if two groups had gene transfer in the recent past, that they must be regarded as the same species.

I said I accepted your definition you posted, perhaps you should go back and contemplate on it.

In addition to the two lengthy discussions I also posted a quick Websters definition, but even that did not say what you claim.

It says exactly what I claim and the exact opposite of what you claim.

"comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding..."

If descendants of a common ancestor aren't related I don't know what is, and when they to top it off are interbreeding right in front of their noses.... Their just isn't any hope at all you people will ever accept the truth.

But even if you are right, it means nothing. Arguing over the meaning of the word species is just an argument of semantics. You deny it, but that is what arguing semantics means-- arguing over the meaning of a word. Look up "arguing semantics". When you argue over the meaning of the word species you are arguing semantics.

I am right and it means everything, because it's those incorrect classification of subspecies as separate species that leads to the false belief that species evolve into other species. It's so important you now feel it necessary to try to pull that lame excuse of semantics. If it was just mere classifications that didn't really mean anything you wouldn't have spent 20 pages trying to convince me they are separate species defying the very scientific definition "you" posted.

Darwin understood this quite clearly...

"Darwin wrote a friend in 1861, 'the change of species cannot be directly proved, and . . the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains [disparate] phenomena. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way.' A few years later he wrote that he was 'weary of trying to explain' the point; most people could not grasp it." —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 436 (italics and brackets his)."

I will repeat. The important thing about finches is that most likely the original finch ancestor of the Galapagos did not have any of the genes for any of the special functions they do. Those things evolved in the finches over time. Saying they crossbred to create all those different groups is silly. Where did the other extremes come from to breed with? That is the important thing.

I will repeat, the original finch had every combination possible within it already. Transcription only writes what already exists, even if it is in a new order, that possible combination already existed within the genome.

They came from the same place all 100 variation of dogs come from, the genome and is already contained within.

I've been praying that you would resort to the beaks and the mutation of the "MLS-1?" gene, (forget offhand the exact designation), but my prayer has not been answered yet.

So you want me to actually believe that we can get over 100 breeds of dog from the wolf, but can't expect the same from finches? I ain't buying that attempt at denial of the emperical data.

How can there be millions of species, when the evolutionists tell us it takes a million years just to make one species? At that rate, in a billion years only a thousand could have been made!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For over two centuries four species of sparrows in North America had been listed (lincoln, fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased as taxonomists moved westward and found additional sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow "species." But as more and more were discovered, it was recognized that they were but intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow (Passerella melodia).

AS for limitations of the genome:

Francisco Ayala has calculated that, among humans, a single couple could theoretically produce 10^2017 children before they would have to produce one that was identical to one of their earlier children (not counting identical twins, which came from the same egg and sperm). That would be 1 followed by 2,017 zeroes. The number of atoms in the known universe is only 108. So the number of possible variations within any given species is quite broad. Yet all of them would only be variations within the same species.

Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool, and although it may produce a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.

Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing "seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc.

"It is an irony of evolutionary genetics that, although it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin of species." —*Richard Lewontin, Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (1974), p. 159.

And let's talk about claims what we see today could not be accomplished in 4,500 years.

"In birds we have the classic example of the European house sparrow (Passer domesticus) which was introduced into North America about 1852. Since then the sparrows have spread and become geographically differentiated into races that are adapted in weight, in length of wing and of bill, and in coloration, to different North American environments . . Yet it has been accomplished in only about 118 generations (to 1980).

"By 1933 the sparrow had reached Mexico City where it has since formed a distinct subspecies. R. E. Moreau had concluded in 1930 that the minimum time required [by evolution] for a bird to achieve that [sub-species] step was 5,000 years; the sparrow required just 30 years. As has been aptly commented:

"'We can here judge the value of speculation compared with observation in analyzing evolution' [E.B. Ford, Genetics and Adaptation (1976).]

" . . Rabbits were introduced into Australia about 1859; yet the wealth of variation now present there is very extensive, vastly exceeding that apparent in the European stock (wildlife Research 10,7382 (1965)]." —A.J. Jones, "Genetic Integrity of the `Kinds' (Baramins), "

You got nothing but incorrect classifications of subspecies as separate species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

why all those cars show the same?:

ferrari evolution‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

They all look different to me.

Now back to my question: Why do the long series of fossils show a clear transition from one state to another with time? Why, for instance, do horse series fossils become progressively more like horses?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Francisco Ayala has calculated that, among humans, a single couple could theoretically produce 10^2017 children before they would have to produce one that was identical to one of their earlier children (not counting identical twins, which came from the same egg and sperm). That would be 1 followed by 2,017 zeroes. The number of atoms in the known universe is only 108. So the number of possible variations within any given species is quite broad. Yet all of them would only be variations within the same species.

Where are you getting this? The actual number is around 6 trillion.

Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes. For each of his father's 23 pairs, each person gets one or the other of the pair. For each of his mother's 23 pairs, each person gets one of each pair. Those 46 combine to make 23 chromosomes for the offspring. That is 2^46 combinations, about 7 trillion.

If you begin with one pair of dogs, then all you have is 2 chromosomes at each site for the male and 2 for the female. That really doesn't give much room for variation on any given trait.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And I asked you what gray area you find so hard to comprehend with finches interbreeding right in front of their noses, to which you chose to never respond.

Please don't confuse your lack of reading of my responses with me not giving a response.

Again, the gray area is that species is defined as an interbreeding population, but there are sometimes situations where breeding can occur between species. It is not always clear how often and in what circumstances interbreeding justifies calling it the same species.

"comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding..."

Uh, nowhere does it say that every ancestor of a member of a species would be the same species. Nowhere does it say that every descendent of any ancient animal would be the same species. Scientists do not use your definition. If they did, then everything is a dog.

A flock is a group of birds. But not all the birds are in that flock.

A couple is a group of interbreeding people. But not all people that have ever bred with those two people are part of that couple.

A species is a group of interbreeding animals. But not all animals that have ever bred with a member of that species are members of that species.

If descendants of a common ancestor aren't related I don't know what is, and when they to top it off are interbreeding right in front of their noses.... Their just isn't any hope at all you people will ever accept the truth.

What truth? The truth that species means what you say it means? We are explaining to you that we have a different definition of species.

Why exactly should we argue all day about who's definition of species is correct?

There are many different varieties of finches on the Gulapagos. Whether you call them species, or xdags, or feewoafes, or yoawpes, or mcdwkaos, or dekafedews does not matter. Why do you insist we cannot use species to mean what scientists mean by the word?

I am right and it means everything, because it's those incorrect classification of subspecies as separate species that leads to the false belief that species evolve into other species.

The thingabobs on the Galapagos evolved from a common ancestor. Whether you call them 15 thingabobs, 15 whatzits, or 15 species does not matter. The important thing is that 1 ____ evolved into 15 _____s. Scientists use the word species. You run around screaming that we need to use your definition, not theirs.

It's so important you now feel it necessary to try to pull that lame excuse of semantics.

Uh, arguing over the meaning of a word is an argument of semantics. What word do you use for an argument about the meaning of a word?

They came from the same place all 100 variation of dogs come from, the genome and is already contained within.

Aha, so the 15 finch _____s of Galapagos evolved from a common finch ____. Good we agree. The only difference is what word we should use in the blank. I use "species".

How can there be millions of species, when the evolutionists tell us it takes a million years just to make one species? At that rate, in a billion years only a thousand could have been made!

It doesn't take a million years to make a species.

But even if it did, if a million different species were evolving into other species, and each division took a million years, then you would get an average of one new species a year.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so some kinds of a spinning motors can evolve naturally?

Uh huh, and some kinds of structural support members (bones) evolve naturally.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Since you believe it's an ancient horse try the horse species.

No, I do not believe Eohippus was an ancient member of the horse species. It was about 18" high, had four long toes with small hoofs on each front leg, and three on each back leg. It browsed on leaves. It was by no means a horse or zebra (Equus). It was in the same family as a horse. That does not make it a horse, any more than being in the same family as your kids makes you your kids.

It sure looks like a transitional.

Who knows, your tree doesn't seem to go anywhere but to extinction.

Uh, no the mammal like reptiles do not end in extinction. The jaw and ear gradually develops during that time, and only after 100 million years of development, do we ever see the mammalian jaw and ear.

So since it led to you, it is not a dead end.

Only an evolutionists sees a clear line of fossils from the dolphin like creature to the whale like creature, but that's probably why every single one of your claimed original ancestors is missing, huh?

Look again. There is a whole series of creatures, leading from land animals to whales.

In case you haven't noticed you show me the end result, but where the split is to have occurred there can never be found a single creature on any of your trees. So you show me an extinct creature fully set in its form, draw imaginary lines back to imaginary ancestors and see an imaginary link. Open your eyes so you can see the light, it's time to stop imagining things.

First, please open your eyes and read the explanation I have posted many times. Do you care to actually respond to the actual argument about cousins of ancestors?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Excuse me, but I have said multiple times here that animals like Hyracotherium and Tiktaalik no longer exist. When I say these things repeatedly, please do not accuse me of saying the exact opposite.

Every single fossil species no longer exists.....

Again, the point is that the fossil record shows nothing of the mass extinctions in which every animal on earth was wiped out at the same time and new life was later created. That is an old belief known as Catastrophism that has been refuted long ago. (Creationists sometimes link flood geology to Catastrophism to give their belief some kind of historical credibility, but they are very different.) I haven't heard it for years until you started bringing it up on this thread. Although major extinctions have occurred in the past, none wiped out everything. See chart below:

And yet from every layer to the next we find all creatures cease to exist except for a select few, and then in the next layer fully formed creatures completely different than any of those in the previous layer. Funny how refutation requires we ignore that very fossil record.

It is referring to the extinctions of many large mammals that occurred about 10,000 years ago. Yes, that happened, and was most likely caused by humans that had developed the ability to kill large animals in the safety of numbers from a distance. Large animals that were remote from the origins of humans did not have an innate fear of humans, so they watched calmly as humans approached to kill them (e.g. the dodo bird).

or perhaps a flood wiped them all out except those brought through it?

Perhaps this is why cheetahs bottlenecked. A few survived, perhaps because these few were unbelievably fast and could get away. What is left are cheetahs that are virtually identical, and are the fastest land animals on earth.

And yet the slower ones that couldn't get away managed to not bottleneck despite their should then be fewer since they were not the fastest animal on earth? That theory seems to be a little lacking.

Uh, no, as I explained before, most of the fossils are identified by genera, which is a step above species. As I explained before, it would be difficult to tell from old fossils if one specimen was a different species from another, but where there is substantial difference (such as between Eohippus and Orohippus), they are called different genera. The many fossils in the horse series are identified as different genera.

And yet despite your acknowledged difficulty every single fossil that looks slightly different is almost invariably classified as a separate species, and promoted as being factual without any doubts. Even if we know subspecies abound in every species and besides one or two classes, there exist hardly any subspecies in the fossil classification.

I will?

You will, just as I am sure you believed at one time the colecanth was transitional to tetrapods.

Uh, no actually that is not how science works. People constantly publish papers that conflict with previous papers, yes. But when that happens, we do not simply throw out the old paper and go with the new. Where we see conflicts, we seek to find out why, and seek to determine how the two findings fit together. We set out to verify with other experiments which is right, or if some combination of the two is right, and where the other conclusion went wrong.

And yet you can't see Finches interbreeding in front of your nose....

It has?

I was in 5th grade 50 years ago, and most of what I learned about science back then is still regarded as true.

But we aren't discussing science when we discuss evolution. If you don't think the theory of evolution has changed radically in the past 50 years you are deluding yourself....

However, I am not sure if the things you learned about science in 5th grade are still regarded as true (or ever were). Just saying.

Science requires you follow scientific definitions.....

Oh dear, Darwin didn't know which finches were mating with which finches on the Galapgos. So what? After all, they weren't breeding right under his nose. How could he have known that?

Perhaps had he actually studied them he might have....

In fact, as far as your paper is concerned, I don't think it mentions one time where two species of finches (you call them sub-species) ever bred in the wild in front of anybody's nose. Instead, what we did was study DNA, and found that there must have been some interbreeding. Darwin would not have been able to do that.

Are you not even familiar with your own research? Must I go look up the Grants own paper for you where they claim not only are two species interbreeding, but three are doing it so much they claim they are fusing back into one species.

You are arguing semantics.

To scientists, "species" is a gray area, and there are sometimes debates on where to draw the line. You insist that we should not use the term "species" as defined by scientists, and insist everybody should use your definition, but it is not clear what your definition is. Would you please formally state the definition of species that you are so firmly entrenched on? Page after page you have argued that scientists should switch to your definition of species, but sadly, you have not yet stated clearly your definition of species.

I've stated many times I fully accept the one you presented. And despite your repeatedly using gray areas as an excuse, I have asked repeatedly what gray area did you find in birds interbreeding right in front of their noses to which you keep avoiding a direct answer. And apparently are not even familiar with the Grants research....

You are excused.

I excuse anybody who thinks I am occasionally mistaken. After all, I am occasionally mistaken.


Ad hominen.

That would be another mistake to think it's only occasionally in the discussion of evolution....

 

[doubtingmerle]

Every single fossil species no longer exists.....

Except for those that are still alive. I believe there are some fossils around of species that are still alive.

And yet from every layer to the next we find all creatures cease to exist except for a select few, and then in the next layer fully formed creatures completely different than any of those in the previous layer. Funny how refutation requires we ignore that very fossil record.

Please document this claim. As I said, science has shown long ago that there were no catastrophes that wiped out all the animals between periods in the fossil record. I have shown you a chart showing that mainstream view, that though there were some events that wiped out large number of species, none wiped them all out. If you think there were events in the past that wiped out everything, please give your evidence.

or perhaps a flood wiped them all out except those brought through it?

Doubtful.

A global flood would leave evidence. We don't see that.

A global flood would cause a bottleneck in all species. We don't see that.

A global flood would totally wipe out the ecology, and the land would take centuries to restore itself.

A global flood would require a lot of water, which is not available.

A global flood would... uh, need I go on?

And yet the slower ones that couldn't get away managed to not bottleneck despite their should then be fewer since they were not the fastest animal on earth? That theory seems to be a little lacking.

Uh no, as I explained, the large animals in Africa evolved with humans, and learned to keep their distance, so they survived being with humans. Other animals, such as the sheep, survived because they were domesticated. Others had various methods of keeping people from wiping them out. But probably most of the large animals were wiped out as they stood and watched these little humans advance on them, having no idea how dangerous a group of coordinated humans can be from a distance.

And yet despite your acknowledged difficulty every single fossil that looks slightly different is almost invariably classified as a separate species, and promoted as being factual without any doubts. Even if we know subspecies abound in every species and besides one or two classes, there exist hardly any subspecies in the fossil classification.

Please document your claim that fossils that look slightly different are invariably classified as different species. I have explained this to you several times. Scientists don't even bother much with the species level when we get to ancient fossils. It is too hard to tell. Instead, they look for broad differences that would cause fossils to be identified as different genera if they were alive today. (Genera is a step above species, a group of species).

In the horse family we have fossils that are so different we identify them as different genera. In no sense could the Eohippus be the same species as the zebra.

And yet you can't see Finches interbreeding in front of your nose....

Nope, I never saw a Finch interbreed in front of my nose. Have you?

Not even the Grants in their research report seeing this. Instead they report that it can be inferred by DNA analysis.

And as I have acknowledged, the DNA shows this.

None of that refutes that from one group of ordinary finches, many varieties of finches evolved.

But we aren't discussing science when we discuss evolution.

Speak for yourself.

As for me, yes, I do happen to be discussing science when I discuss evolution.

If you don't think the theory of evolution has changed radically in the past 50 years you are deluding yourself....

I do think science has advanced a lot in the last 50 years, yes.

But the basic framework is still much as it was 50 years ago.

Science requires you follow scientific definitions.....

It does?

Who wrote the rule that scientists must follow certain definitions? Was there a high priest of words who came up with the definitions Where can I find the complete list of definitions that I am required to follow?

And suppose I speak French. Please show me the official copy of definitions I am required to use to practice science.

Suppose I speak Filipino. Please show me the official list of definitions I am required--required!--to follow in order to use science.

You just making this stuff up?

Perhaps had he actually studied them he might have....

Uh no, the only way to really know about Finch interbreeding is studying DNA. And Darwin cannot be faulted that he did not study DNA. That was not available to him.

Are you not even familiar with your own research? Must I go look up the Grants own paper for you where they claim not only are two species interbreeding, but three are doing it so much they claim they are fusing back into one species.

Actually I have read up a little about the Grants in the last week, but I knew nothing about them before. It wasn't until page 55 of this thread that I got sucked into a discussion on finches. Before that, I had not bothered much with finches.

I've stated many times I fully accept the one you presented. And despite your repeatedly using gray areas as an excuse, I have asked repeatedly what gray area did you find in birds interbreeding right in front of their noses to which you keep avoiding a direct answer. And apparently are not even familiar with the Grants research....

Oh, good. So you agree that a dog species is not defined as any creature that is descended from an ancestor of the dog? Glad we resolved that one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes weird.

Here we have this great flood which covered even Mount Everest and wiped out all the Chinese and Egyptians, and yet their history just seems to go right through the date of the flood with nobody seeming to notice it even happened.

Weird, I say.

not really since your calculations based upon decay rates dont take into account time dilation. So that you are off by a few thousand years in the recent past and hundreds of millions to billions in the far past is not surprising.

 

[xianghua]

They all look different to me.

i actually refer to this one:

Ferrari Evolution

now, base on your argument- we now need to conclude that those cars evolved from each other? of course not. so the same can be said to the fossils case: we cant conclude any evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Uh huh, and some kinds of structural support members (bones) evolve naturally.

so basically a spinning motor isnt evidence for design according to this. the same can be said then to a robot or a car. but we actually do know that a car or a robot or a motor are evidence for design. so how you conclude the opossite?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except for those that are still alive. I believe there are some fossils around of species that are still alive.

Agreed which is why in my next paragraph I qualified that with a select few. Such as the coelacanth, sharks, crocodile - all water based creatures.....

Please document this claim. As I said, science has shown long ago that there were no catastrophes that wiped out all the animals between periods in the fossil record. I have shown you a chart showing that mainstream view, that though there were some events that wiped out large number of species, none wiped them all out. If you think there were events in the past that wiped out everything, please give your evidence.

Ok, at the end of the Cambrian explosion (wont ask you for the beginning, please show me any forms that exists in the layer afterwards found in that layer? I cant prove it to you since they dont exist...

Each layer contains only distinct forms not found in the layers above except thos that survived - as listed above, and those found in the upper layers are not found in the layer below.

It's why evolutionists invented “punctuated equilibrium.”

A global flood would leave evidence. We don't see that.

What evidence would it leave? Not a sharp demarcation line as all the other extinctions and creation of new life. The life that existed before the flood was brought through it, so no change in creatures would be seen in the sedimentary layers.

A global flood would cause a bottleneck in all species. We don't see that.

False reasoning and purposefully decietfull since you know for a fact that over 100 dogs came from just a couple wolves.......

A global flood would totally wipe out the ecology, and the land would take centuries to restore itself.

Regrowth on Mount St Helens 07-31-2011

So much for that timeline theory of new growth.....

35 years after Mount St. Helens eruption, nature returns

A global flood would require a lot of water, which is not available.

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface
and so much for that belief too. But you never understood what breaking open the fountains of the deep meant. The Bible writers knew of that water thousands of years before scientists finally got around to looking.

A global flood would... uh, need I go on?

Apparently you do since you were just proven wrong on all your claims.