On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

Nope. no contradiction.
The few cases make the case the lack otherwise is crushing to the claims of biological evolution.
The few cases can be seen from other minor mechanisms of change. i see them as innate triggers in bodies , especially after the flood, to rapidly fill the earth and so adapt.
Marine creatures clearly were land creatures.
So sure enough they have anatomical evidence.
Yet all other creatures don't seem to have evolved in any way and sure enough they no bits and pieces of foregone bodies.

This is, of course, not true. But not a good one, for two reasons. First, you are simply, flatly wrong about the prevalence of vestigial features.Secondly, the theory does not predict that everything should have vestiges of everything in its line of descent. What it predicts is that those features which appear vestigial should be consistent with the line of descent (as ascertained by the other evidence). That is, it divides vestigial features into two classes, the possible and the impossible --- it in no way implies that any such feature is necessary.A challenge to the theory would involve finding a feature in the "impossible" class.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Of course there is. The sentences "Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas" and "in fact it makes a damning case against [evolution]" are contradictory. On the one hand you admit to evolution being true, on the other you say it can't be true. That's called a contradiction. I'm sorry, what? This sentence makes no sense at all. Neither does this one. Great. Care to provide evidence for those triggers, or should we just take your word for it? Some were, most weren't. Like evolution predicts. Of course they do. Every "body part" around today is from an earlier creature. They don't look like their "original" parts any more, because they were changed to adapt to a different environment.

All other creatures do seem to have evolved and sure enough they are made up of "bits and pieces of foregone bodies".But these bit and pieces are usually not vestigial because they usually haven't lost function.If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have legs, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial legs? No, 'cos you're still using them to walk on. Whales can have vestigial legs because they're descended from animals with legs and they're not using them.If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have teeth, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial teeth? No, 'cos you're still using them to eat with. Duck billed platypuses can have vestigial teeth because they're descended from animals with teeth and they're not using them.If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have eyes, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial eyes? No, 'cos you're still using them to see with. Blind cave fish can have vestigial eyes because they're descended from animals with eyes and they're not using them.If you're descended from monkeys and monkeys have tails, does that mean that you can have a vestigial tail? Yes, and you do, it's called a coccyx.Every animal is composed of "bits and pieces of foregone bodies", but most of these are not vestigial because they are still performing their original function.The only case in which you could even hope to find a vestigial feature is where there has been loss of function. Even then, at least one of three conditions must be met. Either(1) The feature still has some function.
(2) The burden on the organism is so slight as to be invisible to natural selection.
(3) The loss of function is so recent that natural selection has not yet removed the feature.This said, there are of course lots of examples of vestigial features --- but only in places where the theory of evolution predicts that we're likely to find them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I see the same contradictions others have noted. I would reinterpret what you're saying as that the whale evidence might support evolution, but that the rest of the evidence does not, and that whale evidence by itself is insufficient to conclude that evolution happened.But there are many examples of evolution as well evidenced as the whale, the horse being one that is very well known. It would indeed be evidence against the current evolutionary model of gradual species change over time if there were evidence for a flood around 4500 years ago followed by species change radiating from the Middle East to all points around the globe. Were such evidence found we would certainly have to consider the possibility you suggest of "innate triggers" and so forth. But there is no evidence for a flood, no evidence for a world wiped clear of life and repopulated 4500 years, and no genetic evidence for "innate triggers" that would cause the kind of species change you have in mind. The geologic column contains a fossil record of species change over time, with increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth. That they appear to have evolved through lines of descent was readily apparent long before Darwin ever conceived his theory. Relatedness and the appearance of descent has been apparent to so many for so long that it seems perverse to deny it now.And yet you do, thereby introducing yet another contradiction. You claim (in another message) that the designer designed in the nested hierarchy that is reflected in the evidence of relatedness and lines of descent while denying that the nested hierarchy exists. Odd.--Percy

I think I can address your two post replys here.First. I insist there are few vestigial remnants. I say about 0-01% in any living or fossil creature showing a previous body type/life.
Would it make a difference to you if this is so?All in all your saying evolution is fine with a lack of vestigial features. The point we are dealing with at this moment.
Evolution may not predict vestiges sticking around yet the use of them to prove evolution means its a line of investigation to enquire if they are about. if not why not?
What's so special about the few/ why if special are the few used to prove evolution.?
They prove nothing if evolution predicts a fantastic result of their being absent.
Anyways it unreasonable to say massive biology change took place from bugs to buffalos and there not be heaps of pieces of all or most or some or a great deal of the intermediate stages.
Evolutionism can't have it both ways.
Its a good point for creationism.You can't say there won't or need not be leftovers and then use a few leftovers to demonstrate evolution.

Well we would say the geologic column does not show a line from A to B.I'm saying marine mammals did switch from land to sea but not from evolution by selection/mutation.
Rather instant adaptation by innate triggers.
Further they are amongst the few creatures showing in their bodies there was a change.
so this makes a case for evolution of having not happened as otherwise all creatures should show heaps or some remnants of previous body types.
Not the interpretation of present body parts being modified from previous body types.
Water mammals in making a case for anatomical change make a case there was no such change in most other creatures.

If it was instant adaptation, why are there all those intermediate forms? But this is not actually true. See my previous posts.

Your point is obscure.Let me reiterate mine.The theory of evolution tells us which vestigial features are possible under which circumstances, and which are impossible. The theory is always correct. This is evidence supporting the theory.

Hi Robert,No need to quote my entire post. A link to my message is already placed with your message, so anyone who wants to read it in its entirety can click on that link. Plus if you don't trim the quoted portion down I can't tell which part of what I said you're replying to. So would I. Why do you think that's a rebuttal? And your evidence for this is? Could you clarify what you're talking about by providing an example or two? I suggest you stop saying this. It is clear from the number of times you've repeated this that you think it is an effective point, and as I explained in my previous message (the one you quoted in full, look at the top) I think I know what you're trying to say, but when you say it like this it doesn't make any sense. It's like you're taking the old saying "The exception that proves the rule" literally. Exceptions don't prove rules, they test them, which is what the old saying originally meant before the meaning of the word "prove" <ahem> evolved.--Percy

Hi, Robert. I strongly urge you (and all creationists in general) to get away from the alliterated/rhymed "from X to Y" evolution caricatures: despite the delightful symmetry of the literary device, buffalo did not evolve from bugs, and you're not impressing anybody with your ability to find two organisms that start with the same letter.Snowclones rank among the least original and least clever literary devices, even when alliterated or rhymed: yet you people throw them around as if they're not only literary gold, but also of merit in a science debate.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Tens of millions of years from now whales may very well lose these vestigial characteristics. What then? That evidence is found in the developmental patterns of all tetrapods. The recurrent laryngeal nerve loops under the aorta and then connects to the larynx. This is due to our fish heritage as seen here:Just a moment... Why is it impossible for these vestiges to completely go away? Why would a designer need to use a common design? Why would a designer be limited to a nested hierarchy? You haven't explained this at all. Also, some creatures have more than two eyes which falsifies your model. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No, it's from the Latin legal maxim exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis --- the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.For example, if you read that William IV granted the Royal Navy the right to drink the Loyal Toast sitting down, you can (correctly) deduce that the normal thing is to drink it standing up; because there would be no need to single out sailors and say that they could sit down unless this was an exception to a rule saying that people in general should stand up.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that one before. If you go to this link at Widipedia, it describes the interpretation I was using.--Percy

If you say its few then name the percentage relative to fossil/living creatures.!There are no intermediate forms. There is just diversity like in the Amazon today. The ones that are in the seas are just a variety of the innate ability to instantly change. They are adaptating without reference to parents.
Seals today show this. There are types that walk better on land and types that don't. yet they all live together. tHey are not from each other. Though if found in a fossil sequence this error would be made by evolutionism.