We have fish, fish with limbs but not toes, fish-like amphibians - all in all, pretty good. the transition mentioned before, of land mammals to whales, is even more impressive.
the link above is just a starting point. If you still aren't convinced, of course, we can talk in more detail. However, please just don't dismiss this evidence. You said this would convince you, I've provided it, now we can talk about it.
_____________________________________
Well, I took a look at the link, and I'm still not moved. It is strictly theoretically possible for God to have used evolution in order to create, because he can do anything that isn't inconsistent with his nature. Hyperbolically, he could have used smoke, mirrors, cardboard and duct tape if he wanted to--it's just that there's no evidence that he used those types of things to create the universe and make it wind up as things exist today. The exact same situation holds true for the notion of evolution--the problem isn't with the fossil record: it stands as a witness to sudden creation as Genesis describes.
The link's rhetoric, composed of its many concessions (that there are still gaps between the groups, the speciation events are not preserved, cousins and uncles exist rather than parents, "we" assume they are closely related to the actual parents, transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible, etc.), comes across as nothing more than typical naturalistic assumptivism. If one is fully devoted at the onset (before the investigation of the evidence) to the religion of naturalism, they will see the indicated "evidences" according to the perspective that they outlined. I saw nothing that proves or even leads me to believe the claims of naturalists: that creatures have changed macro-evolutionally.
Show me SOMETHING LIKE:
--transitional forms showing the nostrils of a Brachiosaurus (in
the bony dome on top of his head) migrating from a "normal"
dinosaur's snout up into the bony dome on top of the head
--a "normal" beetle transforming into a Bobardier Beetle (that has
twin combustion tubes in its tail, one storing hydroquinone, the
other hydrogen peroxide from oxidizing the hydroquinone--which
combine with catalase and peroxidase when they enter the combustion
tubes, causing the rapid conversion of hydrogen peroxide into water
and oxygen, and thus producing quinone, which is a noxious chemical
that is heated up to 212 degrees Fahrenheit, generating a lot of
pressure, all of which, work together to shoot the Bombardier
Beetle's prey via its swiveling tail gun) / I'm with creationist
Dr. Gish, and say that nothing as complicated as this process could
ever come about by a series of accidents, especially since nothing
works until everything works . . . But from the evolutionary
perspective, some "normal" beetle had to develop storage chambers
for two chemicals so that they could be completely away from the
two enzymes, but why would he invent storage chambers before he had
the chemicals? But on the other hand, what would he do with the two
chemicals until he had some place to store them? And, of course
the two chemicals and the storage chambers would be of no use at
all until the inhibitor, which is also part of this mechanism, was
developed to prevent the chemicals from reacting with each other.
On the other hand, how would the inhibitor be invented until he had
the two chemicals that needed to be inhibited? However, if we
suppose that he did manage, by some mysterious process, to invent
the two chemicals, the inhibitor, and the storage chambers, what is
he going to do with this mixture of chemicals? The enzymes have
not been developed yet, so the chemicals won't explode and generate
heat and irritating gasses. The chemicals will just sit and
corrode his innards without the enzymes, but why would he develop
enzymes before he had the chemicals? On the other hand, why would
he develop the chemicals, the inhibitor, and the storage chambers
until he had the enzymes?
--a "normal" bird transforming into a woodpecker (equipped
with "shock absorbers" around its brain, its incredibly long tongue
used for inserting into his "jack-hammer-produced" tree holes so
that he can lick up the ants inside, the migration of its tongue
anchoring from the back of its beak into the right nostril--
including its split into two halves, after it emerges from the
right nostril, each half passing over each side of the skull
underneath its skin and coming around and up underneath the beak,
there entering the beak and then re-combining)
--etc.
Even if you can't provide fossil proof of macro-evolutionary transitional forms that are intimated above, it might be interesting to read your analytical assessment of how these examples came into existence through evolution, one small step at a time.
In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)
--Marty
™ Version 4.2