>>>GM>Obviously we don't have the molecular patterns from the fish that were
>actually invovled in the transition. They died over 360 million years ago.
What we have is the molecular patterns of their offspring 360 million years
removed. This information would not really prove much about what happened
that far back in the detail you would want to have.<<<
What about gradation?
The 'molecular structure' comment I made wasn't clear. I had in mind
animals that are alive today that left a fossil record. The animals that
are still living that left fossil records 'millions' of years ago
apparently have no molecular relationship to the 'progression' from fish to
amphibian to reptile. Something absolutely necessary.
You have obviously missed the entire point of my fish and flood post.
THERE ARE NO ANIMALS THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY THAT LEFT A
FOSSIL RECORD 'MILLIONS' OF YEARS AGO.
And you haven't answered my question. How do you explain the LACK of
modern fish fossils in the geologic record, when you believe that record is
the result of a recent global flood in which the modern animals are the Survivors
of that event! Are you saying that absolutley NO specimens of modern hallibut
were killed and buried by the global flood?
To quote Behe in
DARWIN'S BLACK BOOK pp 25 - "Yet for the Darwinian theory of evolution to
be true, it has to account for the molecular structure of life. It is the
purpose of this book to show that it does not."
That is irrelevant to the question I raised which was why are there no modern
fish genera or species found in the ancient rocks deposited by the earliest part of
the global flood you believe in. That is the issue I want to discuss.