DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

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 invent how the animal "probably" looked when it was alive. In the case of Ambulocetus, they even depicted it covered with fur. Mind you, all they have is fossilized bones—along with their vivid imaginations.

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!

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
"Extinct" is defined as "having no living descendants."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/extinct?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.or...Extinction

The fossils record does not show any animals evolving from something else. All it shows is similarities. Your position is that the similarities between Ambulocetus and modern whales proves macroevolution occurred. You are using what's known as homology theory to prove macroevolution. Homology theory is flawed, as explained by the following source.

Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals.

That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: ‘Does the similarity that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?’ The simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs.

Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by Darwinists to select examples of homology was: ‘Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary relationship?’ Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of homology into two types: analogy and homology.

(Source: "Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?" by Jerry Bergman. Ph.D.)

Notice the words in bold and red within the quoted text. Do you see the dishonest science that's indicated there? Pro-evolution scientists cherry pick similarities in various animals and focus only on the similarities as their proof of macroevolution. At the same time, they ignore or explain away differences.