If you put my statement in context of your discussion of the fish-Amphibian
transition, then yes. But if you pull it out of context then no. As I
mentioned in my post, the oldest mammal species which currently is found
alive is from the Miocene. But there is no species at all that has existed
for the past 368 million years. Name it and a reference if I am wrong.
>GM>>>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! <<<
>
>Frankly, I don't know. I wasn't there. The assumption, of course, is a
>geologic record in a vast amount of time and that it progresses through the
>eons and eons from the primitive to the more modern.
No, the assumption is that the geologic column was laid down by Noah's
flood. For the sake of argument I am assuming that the geologic column was
deposited in a one year deluge 4000 years ago. If this is true then there
should be modern fish genera in the fossil record. There aren't Why????
Modern molecular
>biology now seriously questions the 'primitive' concept to begin with. To
>quote Behe in DARWIN'S BLACK BOX again, pp 22, "Thus biochemistry offers a
>Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Anatomy is, quote simply, irrelevant to
>the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level.
>So is the fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps
>in the fossil record or whether the record is a continuous as that of U.S.
>presidents."
>
>
What you have done is to ignore a problem the data presents to your position
and tried to alter the subject to molecular biology. Why won't you simply
admit that this is a problem for the global flood position?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm