More on why I reject evolution

[DaveISBA]

Evolution is a fact just like gravity and just like the theory of gravity the theory of evolution is about the mechanics of it

Actually Darwin's TOE is more imagination than theory! It is far from a fact because there is no observable evidence it ever occurred! A fact that even Darwin alluded to in his book (On the Origin of Species): Chapter IX p 251
"through which new varieties continually take the place of and exterminate their parent-form has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually Darwin's TOE is more imagination than theory! It is far from a fact because there is no observable evidence it ever occurred! A fact that even Darwin alluded to in his book (On the Origin of Species): Chapter IX p 251
"through which new varieties continually take the place of and exterminate their parent-form has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

And yet still, Creationists are incapable of explaining how the theory of evolution allows us to predict the temporal and geospatial locality of fossils.

 

[DaveISBA]

And yet still, Creationists are incapable of explaining how the theory of evolution allows us to predict the temporal and geospatial locality of fossils.

Claiming the TOE "allows us to predict the temporal and geospatial locality of fossils" is meaningless because there is no observable evidence, by those who look for it, that Darwin's TOE is an actuality!
What is observed in the fossils record, most, some argue all, species appear abruptly, fully formed with no evidence of intermediate forms! Species then exhibit "stasis" (staying recognizably the same) throughout the history of their existence!

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University in his book (The Panda's Thumb): p. 181-182
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study"
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."'

 

[SilverBear]

Actually Darwin's TOE is more imagination than theory! It is far from a fact because there is no observable evidence it ever occurred! A fact that even Darwin alluded to in his book (On the Origin of Species): Chapter IX p 251
"through which new varieties continually take the place of and exterminate their parent-form has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

leaving aside the simple fact that paleontology was in it's infancy when Darwin wrote this and the fact that yes we can and do see evidence of evolution in the fossil record there aer many observable examples of evolution.
Natural selection and environmental adaptation
Ring species
familial traits
we can observe it in genomes
There is also experimental evidence for evolution such as the Siberian fox project

 

[SilverBear]

Claiming the TOE "allows us to predict the temporal and geospatial locality of fossils" is meaningless because there is no observable evidence, by those who look for it, that Darwin's TOE is an actuality!
What is observed in the fossils record, most, some argue all, species appear abruptly, fully formed with no evidence of intermediate forms! Species then exhibit "stasis" (staying recognizably the same) throughout the history of their existence!

nonsense. the fossil record is full of transitional forms. For example the equine and cetus evolutionary branches each have dozens of transitional forms with in them

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University in his book (The Panda's Thumb): p. 181-182
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study"
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."'

“Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade—a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth.” Stephen Jay Gould

 

[Job 33:6]

Claiming the TOE "allows us to predict the temporal and geospatial locality of fossils" is meaningless because there is no observable evidence, by those who look for it, that Darwin's TOE is an actuality!
What is observed in the fossils record, most, some argue all, species appear abruptly, fully formed with no evidence of intermediate forms! Species then exhibit "stasis" (staying recognizably the same) throughout the history of their existence!

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University in his book (The Panda's Thumb): p. 181-182
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study"
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."'

I observe the fossil record all the time when I go out and collect fossils. It is observable.

And Stephen J Gould also published plenty of works in support of the fossil record and on how it beautiful supports the theory of evolution.

So, I simply can say again, Creationists still can't explain the predictability of the fossil record. But we, the scientists, easily can. It's a product of evolution by common descent.

 

[Job 33:6]

“Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade—a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth.” Stephen Jay Gould

This quote should be pinned at the top of this forum.

 

[DaveISBA]

Author

I observe the fossil record all the time when I go out and collect fossils. It is observable.

And Stephen J Gould also published plenty of works in support of the fossil record and on how it beautiful supports the theory of evolution.

So, I simply can say again, Creationists still can't explain the predictability of the fossil record. But we, the scientists, easily can. It's a product of evolution by common descent.

I suggest then that you inform those like Gould but also Niles Eldredge a well known American biologist and paleontologist of their error because what they observe is in totally conflict to what you claim!
Niles Eldredge (Myths of human evolution) p. 45-46) "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis-that evolutionary change gradual and progressive would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

 

[DaveISBA]

leaving aside the simple fact that paleontology was in it's infancy when Darwin wrote this and the fact that yes we can and do see evidence of evolution in the fossil record there aer many observable examples of evolution.
Natural selection and environmental adaptation
Ring species
familial traits
we can observe it in genomes
There is also experimental evidence for evolution such as the Siberian fox project

You state paleontology was in it's infancy when Darwin wrote this "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" but nothing has changed since his observation!
From (Phys.org) a science, research and technology news service (not a creationist site) who's readership include 1.75 mil scientists. An article dated Feb 19, 2013: ”Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. (They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist).” My emphasis!

The Siberian fox project in no way mirrors what occurs in the wild because it is nothing more than fox domestication through artificial selection that requires human intervention and what did he end up with after his experiment, different animals? No! He ended up with Siberian silver foxes!

 

[DaveISBA]

nonsense. the fossil record is full of transitional forms. For example the equine and cetus evolutionary branches each have dozens of transitional forms with in them

Jeffrey H Schwartz, PhD, an American physical anthropologist and professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, (Sudden Origins): p. 89
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from
the less to more evolved....Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species."

“Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade—a secular religion masquerading as science. They claim, above all, that evolution generates no predictions, never exposes itself to test, and therefore stands as dogma rather than disprovable science. This claim is nonsense. We make and test risky predictions all the time; our success is not dogma, but a highly probable indication of evolution's basic truth.” Stephen Jay Gould

Gould wrote that after getting heat from fellow evolutionists about what he actually observed in the fossil record, sudden appearance and stasis of most species, that incidentally fits the creation narrative and caused him, and others, to formulate and promote an alternative evolutionary theory "punctuated equilibrium"
The bottom line is that Gould may try to throw a bone to his contemporaries by blasting away at creationists but his observations are his observations!
Stephen Jay Gould, American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist" (Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness): p. 14
"This extraordinary abundance of some fossils illustrates something important about the history of life. Evolution is a theory about change through time -- "descent with modification," in Darwin's words. Yet when fossils are most abundant during substantial stretches of time, well-represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone) that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."

 

[Job 33:6]

Author

I suggest then that you inform those like Gould but also Niles Eldredge a well known American biologist and paleontologist of their error because what they observe is in totally conflict to what you claim!
."

What you're saying simply isn't true.

Stephen J Gould of course has passed away, but I personally know his students and have sat through plenty of talks and have spoken with those who knew him personally and those who had even taught him.

You simply don't understand paleontology and it's really that simple.

But let me just point out again that, as noted above, creationists are incapable of accepting the simple fact that the fossil record exists in a very predictable way, consistent with that which is predicted by the theory of evolution via common descent.

Here is a simple order in which fossils appear throughout the earth.

Fish>amphibians>reptiles>birds/mammals. And while there are transitionals between each neighboring group, such as Tiktaalik or the popular frogamander or feathered theropods, we don't find any transitionals between groups that might contradict the theory, ie a fish with feathers or amphibian with mammalian glands.

But further, this order is so well established, than we can use it to predict where fossils will be. Ie, if fish are present in the cambrian through the silurian, and amphibians are present in the late devonian and carboniferous, we might expect to find fish to tetrapod transitionals in between.

And so it is.

There is also a fossil succession in plants as well. Non vascular plants> Vascular plants>seeded plants>flowering plants, and there are even plant transitionals that also link these groups, such as cooksonia.

Creationists simply have no explanation for this but mere denial.

 

[Andrewn]

So, I simply can say again, Creationists still can't explain the predictability of the fossil record. But we, the scientists, easily can. It's a product of evolution by common descent.

But let me just point out again that, as noted above, creationists are incapable of accepting the simple fact that the fossil record exists in a very predictable way, consistent with that which is predicted by the theory of evolution via common descent.

Creationists simply have no explanation for this but mere denial.

From my previous posts in this thread, it's clear that I see that validity of evolution. But I'm also a Creationist, a Christian. Your statements seems to criticize all Christians / Creationists. If you mean to criticize only young earth creationists (YEC) please say so.

Christian scientists, like yourself, should use precise rather than confusing, and derogatory, language which would 1) alienate Christians and 2) give agnostics the impression that all Christians are against science..

 

[SilverBear]

You state paleontology was in it's infancy when Darwin wrote this "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" but nothing has changed since his observation!

of course it has. Anypassing look at the state of the science will show that

From (Phys.org) a science, research and technology news service (not a creationist site) who's readership include 1.75 mil scientists. An article dated Feb 19, 2013: ”Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. (They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist).” My emphasis!

and what of the thousand of articles on Phys.org on intermediate fossils?

The Siberian fox project in no way mirrors what occurs in the wild because it is nothing more than fox domestication through artificial selection that requires human intervention and what did he end up with after his experiment, different animals? No! He ended up with Siberian silver foxes!

first it mirrors the evolution of dogs. and second the result is not Siberian silver foxes as they are no longer silver and have extensive behavioral and psychical changes.

 

[Job 33:6]

From my previous posts in this thread, it's clear that I see that validity of evolution. But I'm also a Creationist, a Christian. Your statements seems to criticize all Christians / Creationists. If you mean to criticize only young earth creationists (YEC) please say so.

Christian scientists, like yourself, should use precise rather than confusing, and derogatory, language which would 1) alienate Christians and 2) give agnostics the impression that all Christians are against science..

Creationists is a common term referring to the camp which rejects the theory of evolution. Otherwise I would refer to the group as theistic evolutionists. Many Creationists these days have abandoned young earth views, otherwise I would be happy to use that term as well. But to be fair, the word Creationist is in YEC as well.

Perhaps I should more commonly use "cdesignproponentists" although this word also includes Creationists as well.

Unfortunately, the party we are referring to has taken claim to their own title. They call themselves Creationists and thus, the name is applied.

If you accept evolution but also believe that you were created by God, most would more commonly refer to you as a theistic evolutionist.

 

[DaveISBA]

What you're saying simply isn't true.
You simply don't understand paleontology and it's really that simple.

I understand what paleontologists have written about! Their recordings of what they actually observe in the fossil record!
Niles Eldredge who is still alive is an American biologist and paleontologist Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History (Reinventing Darwin) p.3: "Simple extrapolation does not work. I found that out back in the 1960s as I tried in vain to document examples of the kind of slow, steady directional change we all thought ought to be there, ever since Darwin told us that natural selection should leave precisely such a telltale signal as we collect our fossils up cliff faces. I found instead, that once species appear in the fossil record, they tend not to change much at all . Species remain imperturbably, implacably resistant to chance as a matter of course."

Here is a simple order in which fossils appear throughout the earth.
Fish>amphibians>reptiles>birds/mammals.

That can be explain by the order in which they were buried due to there location of their habitant in a worldwide flood! After all the most common way fossils are formed are by living organisms being buried in wet sediment deposited by water before scavenging or decomposition and the vast majority of fossils are marine creatures!

And while there are transitionals between each neighboring group, such as Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik is described as being "technically a fish, complete with scales and gills"! https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik
In one video "Finding Tiktaalik" Neil Shubin co-discoverer of tikaatik states “we were running out of money” in Canada and "this was our last chance". After looking for, what he says, was 20 yrs elsewhere then 6 yrs in Canada and not finding any intermediates, they were looking in a hill, he noted, that was "loaded with fossils" they found (one) that they claim is an intermediate fossil...tikaatik? As Darwin himself stated there should be a "truly enormous" amount of intermediate links but even he admitted he did not observe them! It is a believe that tikaatik is just a fish that was compressed from the top down creating this (one) and only unusual fossil because it is as flat as a pancake!

feathered theropods

Feathered theropods are a fiction! There is no such thing as feathered dinosaurs only outlandish claims of such like this misleading headline from smithsonianmag. com "(Scientists Discover a Gigantic Feathered Tyrannosaur)"
They walk back the feathered claim in the article “we know that much of this dinosaur’s body was covered in fine, wispy feathers. These were not flight feathers or down that you might see on a modern bird, but simpler structures best described as dino-fuzz" In one study this dino fuzz is described as degraded collagen fibres! Further stating "The proposal that these fibres are protofeathers is dismissed"
As far as Archaeopteryx is concerned it's just an outright fraud!

 

[Job 33:6]

"That can be explain by the order in which they were buried due to there location of their habitant in a worldwide flood! " -DavelSBA

No it can't. Simply saying that it can, doesn't just automatically make it true.

Plus, this doesn't make any sense because fish are found throughout the entire paleozoic and beyond, and amphibians the same, post mid devonian and forward, reptiles are the same, post carboniferous etc.

What you're saying, and repeating, makes no sense.

Regarding Tiktaalik, It has a flat head with eyes on top (kind of like a crocodile that can peak above the water), robust pectoral girdle (for lifting it's body), spiracles (for air breathing), a robust and elongated rib cage (to resist the weight of gravity above water), and it has wrist bones, such as the ulna and radius (for twisting it's wrists). It also has an unfused neck, meaning that it's head could turn while it's body stays stationary. Simply put, fish don't have necks. Unless they're transitional of course.

And it's not just purely a land species however. It also has fins and scales like a fish.

It's clearly an amphibian. It is of both water and land. And to say otherwise is just dishonest.

 

[Job 33:6]

But I say yet again, all of the above is just irrelevant...there is a lack of explanation for the fossil succession. People who deny evolution have no logical explanation for the fossil record.

We see a simple 1 sentence claim. "Well, the flood did it".

But a flood in no logical way could create such a succession. The fossils are not distributed based on density, for example. They aren't distributed based on the environment of the surrounding geology either. We don't find mammals in the carboniferous for example, even though they could certainly have lived in environments of those times.

And they aren't distributed based on what species might be able to swim better or worse either (non vascular plants aren't going to out-run or out-swim vascular plants or seeding plants for example).

The only logical explanation is common descent. And it's really that simple.

And also, for anyone who is even slightly familiar with works of Eldredge, all you have to do is read his research to see that he actually has described modes of evolution that could account for his view of the fossil record. He and Gould actually supported the idea that allopatric and peripatric speciation could account for the fossil record as modes of evolution.

THE ALLOPATRIC MODEL AND PHYLOGENY IN PALEOZOIC INVERTEBRATES - PubMed

As I've said before, what you're saying about eldredge and Gould simply isn't true. And it's not even a questionable topic. What you're saying is just blatantly false, and this is easily apparent to anyone is even remotely familiar with the topic.

 

[SilverBear]

I understand what paleontologists have written about! Their recordings of what they actually observe in the fossil record!
Niles Eldredge who is still alive is an American biologist and paleontologist Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History (Reinventing Darwin) p.3: "Simple extrapolation does not work. I found that out back in the 1960s as I tried in vain to document examples of the kind of slow, steady directional change we all thought ought to be there, ever since Darwin told us that natural selection should leave precisely such a telltale signal as we collect our fossils up cliff faces. I found instead, that once species appear in the fossil record, they tend not to change much at all . Species remain imperturbably, implacably resistant to chance as a matter of course."


That can be explain by the order in which they were buried due to there location of their habitant in a worldwide flood! After all the most common way fossils are formed are by living organisms being buried in wet sediment deposited by water before scavenging or decomposition and the vast majority of fossils are marine creatures!


Tiktaalik is described as being "technically a fish, complete with scales and gills"! https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik
In one video "Finding Tiktaalik" Neil Shubin co-discoverer of tikaatik states “we were running out of money” in Canada and "this was our last chance". After looking for, what he says, was 20 yrs elsewhere then 6 yrs in Canada and not finding any intermediates, they were looking in a hill, he noted, that was "loaded with fossils" they found (one) that they claim is an intermediate fossil...tikaatik? As Darwin himself stated there should be a "truly enormous" amount of intermediate links but even he admitted he did not observe them! It is a believe that tikaatik is just a fish that was compressed from the top down creating this (one) and only unusual fossil because it is as flat as a pancake!


Feathered theropods are a fiction! There is no such thing as feathered dinosaurs only outlandish claims of such like this misleading headline from smithsonianmag. com "(Scientists Discover a Gigantic Feathered Tyrannosaur)"
They walk back the feathered claim in the article “we know that much of this dinosaur’s body was covered in fine, wispy feathers. These were not flight feathers or down that you might see on a modern bird, but simpler structures best described as dino-fuzz" In one study this dino fuzz is described as degraded collagen fibres! Further stating "The proposal that these fibres are protofeathers is dismissed"

sounds like the feathers an emu or an ostrich has

As far as Archaeopteryx is concerned it's just an outright fraud!

you've just lost what tiny shred of credibility that you had

 

[DaveISBA]

"That can be explain by the order in which they were buried due to there location of their habitant in a worldwide flood! " -DavelSBA

No it can't. Simply saying that it can, doesn't just automatically make it true.

Yes it can because fossils are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rock layers that cover about 75% of earth's continental land mass. A study lesson about sedimentary rock formation found in 5 Weathering, Erosion, and Sedimentary Rocks – An Introduction to Geology "Describe how water is an integral part of all sedimentary rock formation".
Fossilization occurs in these layers when living organisms were buried quickly in wet sediment before scavenging or decomposition took place! In sediments laid down by water proven by the fact that the vast amount of fossil found in these layers are marine creatures found on every continent to the highest mountain ranges even in the Himalayas and on Mount Everest!
So how could these sedimentary layers be laid down over millions years when the layers had to be laid down quickly to bury untold billions of living organisms?

Regarding Tiktaalik, It has a flat head with eyes on top (kind of like a crocodile that can peak above the water), robust pectoral girdle (for lifting it's body), spiracles (for air breathing), a robust and elongated rib cage (to resist the weight of gravity above water), and it has wrist bones, such as the ulna and radius (for twisting it's wrists). It also has an unfused neck, meaning that it's head could turn while it's body stays stationary. Simply put, fish don't have necks. Unless they're transitional of course.

Your extreme effort in your description to try to turn Tiktaalik into an intermediate falls on deaf ears because it is commonly and technically described as a "Lobe-finned fish"! and Tiktaalik translated means “large freshwater fish”!
As the co-founder said in his video he spent 26 years unsuccessfully searching for an intermediate! He said he found plenty of true fish and true amphibian fossils but curiously only one, tiktaalik, he claims is a transitional fossil when, as has been stated, over supposed millions of years there should be a "truly enormous" amount of intermediate fossils! Many more than then any finished product fossils!
Tiktaalik...that is fragmented with the rear portion missing! Evolutionists love fragmented specimens so that they can assign any physical attribute they want to it!

 

[Job 33:6]

Tiktaalik...that is fragmented with the rear portion missing! Evolutionists love fragmented specimens so that they can assign any physical attribute they want to it!

You're just continuing to lie, over and over and over again.

At least a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik have been uncovered. It's not just one skeleton. Several of which are nearly complete skeletons.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan | Nature
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb | Nature
Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. And just because something is called a fish, doesn't mean that it isn't transitional. Every transitional species has to be called something. A reptile to bird intermediate has to be called either a reptile or a bird. You don't just make up names for things in between.

And regarding the question of how fossils get up into mountains, there is a simple thing called the theory of plate tectonics that explains uplift of rock far better than any explanation you have.

And with that, I'll have to part ways.

If you ever decide to actually address the fossil succession beyond just making up false information, feel free to let me know.