Sabre: The point I was trying to make is that absolutely no transitional forms, either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life, have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.
It seems to ba a common misconseption that the transitional species are some kind of special non-fully functional species compared to the "stable" species.
There is no such thing. Any species is a transitional form. Evolution is a change in frequency of gene alleles, so any species existing at any time is just a slice on the evolutionary branch. Gene allele frequency changes all the time - sometimes faster than others, under influence of natural factors. Any species at any time is a fully formed specie and a transitional step towards future species tham may come out of it - if it does not end up extinct.
Trillobites are a good example. These are very simple creatures, yet hugely complex compared to single-cell organisms, which all other life (plant and animal) supposedly came from). Yet there are no fossils showing earlier evolutionary steps leading up to trillobites.
Maybe because the evolutionary forms leading to trilobytes were all soft parts and did not preserve well over billions of years? Unlike micro-organisms with hard skeletons and trilobites themselves with hard exo-skeletons?
The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all.
The fossil record that we obtained is not complete and what we have is subject to classification and interpretation. Just because we name some species B instead of "A transitional step between A and C", it does not mean there was no transition between A and C.
Regarding chronology, proponents of evolution have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top, showing a chronological evolutionary progression from simple to complex. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account but not the evolutionary process. In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layer which supposedly formed over millions of years. The rock strata consists of a plethora of contradictions and reversals. Often the strata that is supposed to be old is found on top and vice versa. Often they are horizontal with one another.
Only few decades ago the very concept of plate tectonics and continantal drift was considered a funny nuicance. Since then we discovered that Earth crust plates do all kinds of tricks, flops, slides under each other, accumulating sedimant, raising on top, being covered with volcanic material from layers that are supposed to be below, etc. And that is just over the last few hundred million years.
When we are talking about billions of years and not completely understand processes involved, making any claims where the layers should be is at best uninformed.
miko
