I am skeptical re the claimed discoveries of transitionals (which now
appear to be coming out of the woodwork thick and fast!). For me, the
'Piltdown Hoax' still rankles. I believe that evolutionists - frustrated
by the absence of these mythical creatures in the geologic column - are
inclined when examining fossils, to see and assume more than is there.
After all, that's the way of man, and there's a large audience out there
eagerly awaiting such news.
As I've explained, I see problems of logic with the whole business, and
nothing you've said so far has really addressed the nub of the matter.
You seem happy to discuss the beginning and the end of the alleged
sequence but leave the long middle section to look after itself. What
you have to explain is how a disadvantaged fish (with fins now carrying
incipient swellings, or whatever), can survive and reproduce in the same
environment as his more mobile fellows. Isn't it extremely likely that
he will be 'a sitting duck' for some predator? - and, anyway, miss
whatever food is going?
The standard answer to such questions appears to be: We are here, so it
must have happened! In my book, that is not just good enough.
By the way, did you receive my earlier email re the numerics of Gen.1:1?
Regards,
Vernon