DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[NoahsFarce]

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.

What exactly do you call this then?


Instead of getting your education from garbage creationist sites, try reading from more credible sources.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And please... PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF BLAKE LIVELY... STOP trying to separate micro-evolution from macro-evolution. While they are legitimate scientific terms, scientists make no distinction between the two when it comes to Evolution. You can't have one without the other.

Do you honestly think that scientists believe an Ape shot out a human magically one day?

Back to transitional fossils, no matter how complete the fossil record becomes (it will never even be close to complete and I have a feeling that you don't understand how fossilization works), creationists will ALWAYS say there are none. You creationists would even make some wild excuse up if a Crocaduck really did exist and we found the fossil to prove it.

Let me ask you something... do you have kids? I want you to show me a picture of your child the exact moment he/she TRANSITIONED from baby to toddler. Go ahead, I'll wait for it.