Show one complete lineage in evolution

Excellent question. Truly well articulated and to the heart.They didn't answer you with evidence did they? THEY CAN'T.Why can not intelligent people who have put thier minds to this subject so unable to present trasitional forms or understand they are failing too?
Because your question cuts to the heart of evidence of a theory.
And the evidence not being there suggests to thier own conscience the evolution theory is weak and perhaps another wrong idea of the 19th century.There are not transitional fossils between major kinds of animals and none will ever be found. As a creationist I suggest that God created all kinds of animals and then the fall distorted them. Then the flood came but the kinds of animals were still recognized as a kind though distorted by death in the world. After the flood there was speciation but only within boundaries. I do belive that whales and seals were first land creatures but I don't think there were intermediate forms but rather instant changes as in the colour of people.As you might note the claim of horses with three toes and those with nine being presented as proof of evolution rather proves the poverty of fossil evidence for the great claims they make.You can go anywhere and your question will always shut them down.
Yet you will not hear this question in the schools.
Regards Rob

You say again there are plenty of transitional fossils. That was the question. What are they? Saying they are there should not persuade your opponent rather showing what they are!
Remember what is being asked for are a real sequence from something to something totally different. Not manicured/not manicured horse toes.
You say there is lots of evidence for evolution. Well first things first. We can deal with each piece of "evidence" in its turn
Regards Rob

I read what you asked.
First if this was transitional fossils then why is the posterboy for evolution horse feet.
Because there is a problem with the other suff. It is only a sequence of fossils and then an interpretation is made they are related.
whereas with living creatures an actual fossil record showing one major kind evolving into another is nessessary to make thier case.
fossils of the past can be made to have any interpretation.The overwhelming point remains that transitional fossils of major kinds of creatures do not exist. If evolution was true they would exist in great numbers of many kinds. Because of the time evolutionists say has past. All that time but no transitions to shout about.
Also evolutionists themselves have admitted embarrassment at the poverty of transitions. And this has forced,I repeat forced, the idea of Puncuated Equiblibrium (my spelling is not ALWAYS right).
This is admission they were wrong in the past about gradual change.And they were wrong in the past because they had no evidence just speculation. Just as it is now.No horse toes are not relevant when evolutionists are asked for transitional changes between great kinds of creatures. This is evidence of a problem on our opponents part.
Regards Rob

Ok I'll go

Your misunderstanding the discussion.
Speciation of horses is not a problem.
Its about Major kinds journey into different major kinds
Regards Rob

Your right more then you know my first responce to your example of a transition was pathetic.These examples of transitions reveal the lack of examples.
This is what we mean to say.These examples also are just interpretations of fossils found here and there. HOWEVER it would be difficult for you to demonstrate they are legitamate lineages even when they WERE.Transitions to a creationist is the subject of what is not there not a close analysis of a few bug types in a cave.I've read all I need to know as a layman about PE.
Simply there are long periods of no change in something and then it is changed and long periods come again.
Rather simply they are forced to accept the fossils of a kind are all the same when the time involved should be against that. (First error. The fossils represent a instant event and not long time)
and then they have a different kind without a progression that should of been there. (second error. It was just a different kind in a different area at the same event)They find no change over long periods of time as they see it. Then change suddenly is there.They were forced to throw out the old ideas though held long time.
The old ideas could easily be thrown out because they had no science behind them. Its all speculation or history. Not science.
PE is a good example however that they recognized all along something wasn't adding up..
Rob

OK good points. This comes up all the time.
The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it.
The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis.The fossils are not as they would be in a evolutionary theory which is why PE came along to overthrow a 150 year old error (as they see it).
All there is data in the field and then human interpretation. The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history.
Darwin travelled the world looking at data and then came up with a idea. Not the other way around.
Regards

Thanks for the responce but you made my points.
I know there was no transitionals for Darwin. There aren't "really" now any either. Thats the discussion here.You admitt it. That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". The Yanks here are saying there was no error. PE just was added on they say.PE demonstrates conclusively that the fossil record is all about interpretation. NOT science.
If it was science then PE advocates would of have to disprove test results verifying gradualism 100 years ago. But there were no tests.
It was speculation and finally in these swmall circles someone came up with a new idea to deal with the embarrasment of fossil poverty on gradual change.
Unless my thinking is wrong somewhere.
regards Rob

You made a number of points but I'll just deal with the most important.You say that PE just is gradualism at a different rate. Well yes but thats not the point. The point is that it replaced a previous idea. I understand that you are trying to say it only replaced a 100% all-the-time etc thing.
Yet this is not true. The men who suggested PE are famous for this new idea. It was not just a extension. It was a correThey were also attacked in evolution circles at first.My whole point about PE is not that it is opposed to gradualism. Rather it was brought in because the evidence of fossils,though not scientific evidence, insisted the old idea was untenable.
How can you say PE did not replace an important point in evolution thought? And so the process of replacing is open to scrunity. And creationists can demonstrate that the previous idea was not backed up by Science but rather was speculation based on evidence of fossils found. It was never a scientic theory and so it was easy to overthrow it with another "idea". (which also one day will be overthrown in like manner).INDEED you yourself said the old idea was falsified and tested and then found wrong.
Well what took so long? 100 years before this took place or the previous falsification and testing itself was wrong?
NO instead it is clear there was no previous falsification/testing. It was never a thing of science.
And the replacement hasn't falsified or tested anything either.
I can't see why we disagree on this.
\

Good point about creationists asking for fossil links in the name os scietific evidence.
THE official line is, rightly, that fossils are evidence of something but scientific evidence of nothing. (again scientific evidence versus regular evidence sneaking in here)
However many make the mistake of accepting fossil links as science and then go on to contend about gaps.I must say you did give a good explanation of how PE works in the whole thing. Better then many in text books I've read on the subject.Yet the point remaims that PE replaced a previous idea.
And the idea of 100%-all- the-time gradualism being replaced is a great example of why evolutionary subjects are not science.
They are untested (indeed untestable) hypothesis claiming to be scientific theory.
So over they go when as they all will in time.
The "tests" wern't overthrown. There were never any tests. It was never a scientific assertion.
Rob

Nosyned. You wrote finely of how the process worked.
For the record I have Darwin's book and he most certainly felt there was enough fossil evidence to draw conclusive results. (Though of coarse the gaps bothered him and he thought time would reveal them ; they didn't and so PE)You said I have the idea that because a scientific theory is subject to change etc that creationism will win.Not at all NNThe whole point about PE was that it was a good example of how ToE was not a study of science but history.
PE is a change of speculation on past events and It NEVER had to overthrow all the tests of the previous idea. There were not any to overthrow. It is all observation and interpretation. But no testing or any science at all.Again why did the testing and falsification fail for a hundred years to reveal the error?? Why did all the testing in that time confirm the error?
In both cases the answer is there were no testing/falsification going on. Because it is impossible to test the past. And so PE is a result of an idea that was never based on the scientific method.
PE is accepted because it corrects an embarrassment of ToE.
Yet it reveals a greater embarrassment. And this will become an drum for creationists to beat in the future.
Rob

Brad Mcfall seems to be questioning me or you that PE is "just" a rate change. (I think)You said a lot but i will deal with your saying " it was inference based upon the evidence at the time".Mark in North America this is not science. This is garden or common way of drawing conclusions.Science is about a hypothesis that tests,falsifies etc and if it stands you have a theory.A scientific theory is presented by acedemia to the public as something solidly based on a conclusion of a process of evidence testing (and being able to be tested).
Not just Inference on bits of data.
Yet another defination of science is introduced to defend an obvious matter. PE corrected a error in ToE. And this error was easily corrected because it was based not on science but historical inquiry.
PE overthrew no tests etc for there were none.
And creationists 30 years ago could of said there is no evidence for total gradualism and they would of been right. Here's PE. PE is a retreat even if not yet understood as such.
Rob

You addressed me so i will out of respect respond. BUT
You misunderstand the discussion. We are beyond whether PE is a problem for evolution.
The matter being discussed was whether PE introduction itself was evidence that the whole matter is a subject of history and not a subject controled by the scientific method. And so not science. Very different .Rob

Loudmouth.
You still insist that PE did not replace a previous idea.
I insist it did. We have hit a wall on what should not be in contention. I never meant or said that gradualism wasn't a viable theory.I'm not contending that.Your example of marine invertebrates makes my point of what science is not. Close attention folks.(first again i would say the observation came first that the fossils changed suddenly and then the idea of PE but no matter)
ALL that you showed was, at best , a kind of prediction. BUT not the scientific method.
The scientific method has prediction as a component but prediction does not equal the scientific method.
The prediction of the marine fossils and location etc was not a test. It was rather a mere interpretation and reinterpretation of data. Speculation with more data.
We are in the anatomy of a concept here but it is the great rub between creationists and evolutionists.
We accept the defination of science or the scientific method and hold you too it. And, I believe, you innocently misunderstand your own concept and its boundaries.The other example is beyond me. Too weighty. I'm being asked to analysis intricate subjects. Our contention is not grade four math but neither is it calculus.
Rob

MARK. In our discussion We have come to a agreement.
As you said in your way evolution is inference/interpretation.
This is the point/rub.
Our oppenants will present to us and the public that evolution is not mere i/i but is the result of the scientic method with its strick rules for what qualifies as a science theory. Inference/interpretation is not thier slogan at all.
If in North america evolution was relugated to i/i then we would be very happy.Not me but you guys need to show the scientic method can be applied to past and gone events.The discovery of evolutionary rate change (your words/premise) is not the result of the scientific method.
Just reinterpretation of data already received.
Rob
(p.s.0 You guys are getting weighty and involved. IWe can handle it point by point but not paragraph by