> Ive been reading a lot of the stuff on transitional species fascinating
> stuff!! Nevertheless Ill stick with special creation. The design features of
>animals are incredibly complex. Feathers for example are complex structures
>which can only have been designed down to the microscopic level to perform as
>they are supposed to! If Archeopterix was originally classified wrongly as a
>dinosaur, that wouldnt be the first time 'biology without the soft parts' has
>got it wrong.
>
>As for your amphibian transformations, they are interesting. Are they
> conceivably all ancestors of one another though? Or simply a grab bag of
> exotic creature which make a good story?
If they were merely a grab bag of creatures, one would expect that another
similar grab bag of creatures at a different layer in the geologic column
could be put together telling the same story. It can't. There are no other
periods containing such a sequence of characters in a temporal sequence as we
find in the fish-amphibian transition.
The problem is that anti-evolutionists from Gish to Phillip Johnson say that
there are no transitional forms. There are. Even if one does what you are
suggesting and say that this series is a grab bag, you cannot deny the fact
that these are a series that appear transitional. They simply choose not to
acknowledge them. To tell a student that there are no transitional forms
without warning him of sequences like these is to leave him ill-prepared when
he goes to college and learns of such things. And the anti-evolutionists never
write about such sequences in enough detail to let us know what the
evolutionist is saying.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm