The fact remains that if creature B appears in the fossil
record after creature A, there is no reason to believe that
creature B actually existed before creature A. The best the
evolutionist can say is that it is *possible* that the vagaries of
fossilization have created a false impression. That, however, is
an assumption which the evolutionist makes to harmonize the data
with his theory. I have no problem with assumptions, but they need
to be "confessed." That way, when the creationist balks at the
claim that creature B begat creature A, his resistance can be
properly understood.
Ashby