DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Jovian]

Alter2Ego, the vast majority of scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. It is only the Creationist disinformation campaign that has been propagating the idea there is no evidence.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Am I supposed to take your word for it? Or are you going to present evidence of the "vast majority of scientists" that are lying about "overwhelming evidence." What evidence? They have none. That's why evolution remains a theory and can't graduate into "fact."

You really need to take a look at fossils like Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and say to yourself, are all these scientists really wrong about these fossils?

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
I read up on Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and was not impressed. The language used in describing Ambulocetus is so speculative that it amounts to science fiction writing.

Scientists find fossilized bones of creatures that have been dead for extended periods of time. They then proceed to invent how the animal looked when it was alive to the point of describing it was covered with fur. Mind you, all they have is fossilized bones—along with their vivid imaginations.

Below is a depiction of how someone IMAGINED Ambulocetus might have looked, including its fur-covered body. The depiction is followed by a brief quotation describing the creature.



Keep your eyes on the bolded and red text within the quotation below, and you will see they're doing nothing but speculating/giving their personal opinions.

Its body was rather like that of an otter or crocodile and it could move on land as well as in water. It was probably not as fast and agile as an otter though, and palaeontologists think that it hunted more like a crocodile - ambushing and then using its large, puncturing teeth to hold struggling prey underwater until they drowned.

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.htm

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

Then what do you think these fossils are then, Alter2Ego? Mutant fish? Use some common sense. These are ancient species that are long extinct, but their descendants are still alive today. Ambulocetus is the ancestor of modern whales, and shares many traits that are only found in modern whales. Scientists use something called common sense by comparing these fossils to modern animals to discern how they lived, just how archaeologists find ancient tools and comparing them to modern tools to know what they were used for. They would know that a sword would be used for battle or spear would be used for hunting, right? But by your logic, for all we know these tools could have used for scratching their asses!

But why am I bothering? You're not interested in learning or studying evolution. You're only here to try and undermine it. You should know that we don't have time machines nor does everything happen in our lifetimes. So what would be evidence for evolution in your eyes? If you're expecting something like a crocoduck, then you have a very wrong perception of how evolution works.