What would a transitional fossil look like?

There is no actual evidence that mammals came from reptiles. And when you try to figure out how many trials it would take before you got an ear arrangement even remotely similar to the mammalian ear from the reptilian you ought to see that the sheer numbers defeat the whole idea.Anyway, it's clear that the whole fossil record "evidence" for evolution is a pipe dream. The very idea that time, hundreds of millions of years of time, sorted itself into separate stacks of sediments containing particular life forms that fossilized, is nonsensical. One "time period" of millions or hundreds of millions of years, is identified by, say, nothing but sandstone, another by, say, nothing but limestone, another by shale, and some by mixtures of sediments, you find them illustrated and labeled as time periods, such as "Devonian" or "Permian" or "Jurassic" or whatnot so don't tell me I'm confusing the time scale with the geological column, they are thoroughly well confused all over the internet without my help. And of course the idea is utterly nonsensical. Not to mention that if you try to figure out how a given layer of sediment formed in the time period in question you can't do it, it's impossible.Such nice neat layers too, with nice neat separation from the sedimentary layers above and below. Supposedly formed over multiplied millions of years. But I'm just a stupid creationist so you can pretend I'm not saying anything. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're right, I'll try to shape up.

You fail to take into account that the scientists who study these things are first of all dedicated to the ToE which colors how they think about all these things, and if the ToE is wrong, which of course it is, they are being misled. It isn't as if they approach their study without bias. I'm not so hampered. However, if I run across a seriously different trilobite body plan I may have cause to rethink things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

SO much time is wasted here with such silly word games that say nothing.

The trilobite body is always the same body plan which is what argues for its being one species.

You would do well to dispense with the snark. I am not constrained by the ToE and that was the point as you well know. And if I see a trilobite that has a different body plan I most certainly will rethink it. I have nothing against the idea of there being another species that is similar but not a trilobite.

You are missing the point. If the ToE is wrong a lot of the study is going to be wrong too.

It makes the trilobite one Kind and contradicts the ToE which is the big splitter, creating apecies where there are really only variations built into a species genome..

ALL insects? Dragonflies, beetles, ants etc? Or do you just mean all dragonflies, all ants etc? In the latter case I'd probably argue that they ARE all one species.

That's what I think too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When people don't even try to communicate sensibly, which means you, the whole idea of debate is trashed.

Yes, one species or one Kind, that's how I see all those trilobites climbing up the fossil record for the supposed hundreds of millions of years represented there, and it is the sameness of their body structure that enables me to classify them that way. And where did I call it bias to classify other creatures the same way: I thought I've been pretty clear that the Kind or species is identified by the body structure. It may take some discussion to define it but that's the basic criterion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You aren't making any sense, sorry.

OK I won't go inactive until I know it's going to stick.Just couple of general responses: First, my religious beliefs are nothing but the standard orthodox (which simply means "accepted as the truth") historical Protestant Christian theology. There's nothing odd about it, nothing just my own. The Christmas Carols are certainly mainstream Christian theology. And it is not "superstition" as I saw someone here say. Superstition is stuff like imputing power to relics or rituals, or to saints who are merely human, which is something the RCC is known for and the Reformation ended. Protestantism is not superstitious, it is completely based on historical events. Yes some of them supernatural, but that's not superstition if you have any respect for language.Second, I am here because I genuinely believe I can show, and have, shown, the falseness of the ToE in many ways, yes with evidence, and offered some reasonable creationist alternatives, and that, truly, nobody has answered me effectively. Sometimes I get nothing but some kind of snarky putdown, or somebody saying it all comes from the "myth" I believe which is just an obfuscating lie since I've referred only to actual events in the world. Just to assert that evolution occurs from microevolution times hundreds of repeats is no answer because I've argued that the species genome is naturally limited to the characteristics of the species and to get anything that doesn't belong to that species from that genome is impossible. I've asked how you think that could happen and so far nobody has really come up with a way it could, some kind of genetic change that would even start the process, like getting a human hand from a chimp hand etc. Bunch of stuff said above just dumps too much silliness on me to be answerable. If anyone really thinks I should try to answer it, it could only be done one at a time and really, it doesn't seem worth it anyway. More effort would have to be made to take it out of the realm of mere ridicule and seriously try to understand what I'm trying to say.And three, yes I sometimes try to defend the conservative point of view in politics, or such events as the movie "Ujplanned." I don't think I do a very good job of this, however.I will probably have a strong urge to go Inactive when I get whatever answers to this are offered, but I will resist it at least for a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, here we go. First you pick on a minor point which distracts from the whole, and then you use Wikipedia of all things to argue with it. Take my understanding of the term as fundamental or forget having a discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.