evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." *David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.Since there were no examples in Darwin's time, as admitted by Darwin, that leaves less than nothing.

I have read several analyses of your example and most of them conclude that all of the supposed pre-horses existed at the same time as horses.

I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect. How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence?Why is it if I quote someone I'm quote mining? Does that mean that the quote is any less valid?

If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.

Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime? Or postulated that if his theory were true, there would be an abundance of them? Or are you saying that no evolutionists will admit to the fact that there are none.

New sub species have appeared, not new species. If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. No wonder there is little agreement in evolutionist circles, other than it must have happened.

A real horse ancestor would be a horse, of course. Evolution didn't take place or there would be real, not speculative, evidence.

Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird, and a true bird fossil has been found predating arch. by 50 million years.

Exactly my point. You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. If anything, genetic diversity is lost.

How about evolutionists that disagree?) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"

Yes, I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches. The species will never produce a woodpecker for example. There are many variations of many domesticated animals but a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog. After all, doesn't the theory of evolution require totally new species to appear, as in the wolf whale, actually becoming a whale?

Different morphological outcomes that can never be more complex than the ancestors. Observed mutations always impact negatively. There is a limit to the results you can obtain from selective breeding.

I wasn't aware that using quotes was against the guidelines. I didn't intend to include the material preceeding the quotes. I am one person attempting to respond to several in the limited time I have for this intellectual exercise. Please forgive me.

Are a lion and tiger different species? I am saying that there are limits, and experiments have proven that.Dogs are wolves who have just about reached the limit on selective breeding. I do not see how a hairless chihuahua is an example of natural selection. If the wolf were a result of chihuahuas breeding, then you would have something.

Humorous, isn't it, that objective evidence is what I was looking for when I first joined this discussion? It seems we don't always get what we want.