No.
Reptiles grow until they die. Preflood humans at least were very long lived.
Don't see how. Until the 1800s, many Protestant clerics insisted that God would not allow a species to become extinct.
Wanna reconsider that line of argumentation? Even neoDarwinists are willing to put aside the (Darwinist) ideas of the 19th century.
Don't see where. BTW, all mutations increase the amount of information in a population. Would you like to learn how?
No, because they dont.
Static is not information. Jimi Hendrix notwithstanding.
Most secular genetists dont support you on this.
That's wrong, too. There are a number of documented instances of slow evolution from one species to another. Would you like to learn about that?
Love to. Lets have a look at what paleontologists have to say about rank morphology.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make 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 of putting them to the test.
I know the response is a bit flip. The OP is a pretty simple idea, and kinda flip in its own way. The supposedly rigorous test for whether something is scientific or not, like predictive capacity, is really not all that deep. Its easy to make something sound predictive.
And there are no documented cases of slow evolution, only inference about where species came from -- well, that is the argumentative response. We are dealing in theory and philosophy. You want to say skull shapes proves a transition from one animal to another, I guess you have that right. But, its just as valid to say you have lots of similar species that are now extict after having been created independently. Or, they could all be variants within the same species -- like clydesdales and thoroughbreds.
I think we also have the right to argument that similarity in shape is just that and not necessarily a transition between species. We creationists are looking for some admission that the "transitions" are one of many possible interpretations of limited evidence. The obvious grounds for doubt is so studiously avoided that we get a bit flip at times.
