This is my last whack on this particular question. For some
reason we are not communicating.
In my post on whale evolution, I objected to the claim that
creature B was ancestral to creature A on the basis that creature
B appears after creature A in the fossil record. You said this was
invalid because creature B *could have* preceded creature A but not
been fossilized until after creature A. In response, I pointed out
that that would be purely an assumption. In other words, there is
nothing in the fact that creature B appears *later* than creature
A to suggest that creature B actually lived *before* creature A.
If anything, the inference from that data would be to the contrary.
Creature B may indeed have had a long history before it was
fossilized, but there is no reason to believe that its fossiliza-
tion time was longer than that of creature A. That assumption is
driven by the theory, not the evidence.
You respond by accusing me of insisting that the first
creature of every species be fossilized. I don't get it. My point
is not that the first creature of every species must be fossilized
but that the order B/A provides no evidence for an order A/B.
Since the evolutionist is claiming the B arose from A by natural
descent, he must have evidence to demonstrate that B preceded A in
time if he hopes to persuade the skeptic.
I understand that the evolutionist can still believe that B
preceded A by assuming that the the second in time was simply the
first to fossilize, but that will not suffice for one who does not
buy evolution in the first place.
Ashby