Evolution is a Fact's 2ND Rebuttal

Quote mines and straw man arguments won't make transitional fossils disappear. None of the articles you cite disqualify these fossils as you claim and in fact, they support them—which is why I have provided links to them. I sincerely hope that readers will take the time to read the articles in their entirety. And while I'm a big fan of both National Geographic and Newsweek, I am curious as to why you would use popular magazines as opposed to peer-reviewed works as "proof." You supplement these quote mines and false inferences with the usual "transitional species X must have evolved specifically from transitional species Y in order for the transition to be true" fallacy. But this is not how Evolution works.

These transitional fossils all appear in the fossil record above and below the fossils they unite. What make them transitional are their transitional features between the two types of animals (ie. reptiles and birds). Evolution works like a tree, not a ladder, and different species of the same order will evolve differently if at all depending on ecological factors. Paleontologists have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to. Fossilization is rare so while we can certainly research and understand the fauna that existed at a certain point in time, we can't expect to recover every single species.

Since you agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, let's talk about a handful (word limit) of its reptilian features, not found in modern birds; a reptilian mouth (teeth, and no bill or a beak), trunk region and vertebrae region are free (fused in modern birds), and its neck attaches to the skull from the rear (not the middle). Like other birds with reptilian features (such as Confucius-ornis), Archaeopteryx is found in the layers below fully modern birds but well above the first therapod dinosaurs. If a 1998 article mistakenly suggested that a certain therapod was ancestral to Archaeopteryx, it does not make either of their transitional features go away, nor does it change the fact that we find in them in the expected intermediate layers. The two transitions share a common ancestor, and Archaeopteryx simply had more modern avian features.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/98/dinosaurs/interview.html

Biologists don't create new orders like "dino-birds" for transitional forms. It's either classified as a dinosaur or a bird, and birds are generally considered "avian dinosaurs." Hence, "it's just a bird" is not a rebuttal, and nor does your Alan Feduccia (The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill) quote mine. Feduccia believes that birds (which you agree includes Archaeopteryx) evolved from non-therapod reptiles. The conclusion is still the same; Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil for the reasons I gave above. You also leave out the fact that other bird experts disagree with Feduccia, and also support the therapod-bird connection.

Whale Evolution

Tapirs in fact lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle (so its not a disqualifier). Whale expert Phillip Gingerich (who you yourself quote) says;

"Pakicetus has long been known to have cranial characteristics of both land and aquatic mammals"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200307/ai_n9246707/pg_13

Unfortunately the Nature article you quote costs $30 to view. However, in your search for truth, perhaps you'd be kind of enough to use your donated funds (that's what they're for, correct?) to pay for the rights to reprint the article in its entirety.

Your Ambulocetus comment is wholly unsupported, and I am in fact familiar with the source of your faulty claim. Below is a picture of a single Ambulocetus find, which was corss-referenced with other Ambulocetus finds. This is what Paleontologists DO.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg
Blow Hole Evolution is accounted for. The fossil record of the early cetaceans displays obvious nasal drift; Pakicetus (at the snout, like most land mammals), Rodhocetus (nasal passage above canine teeth), Basliosaurus (nasal passage along middle of snout).

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm

The reason there's no model for how a nasal passage made its way through a whale's brain is because it never happened. The blowhole is not "behind" the brain. This is an internet urban legend that refuses to go away. These diagrams/pictures should clear up some confusion.

http://www2.cruzio.com/~jaroyan/gfx/ex5b.gif http://digimorph.org/specimens/Tursiops_truncatus/

The length difference between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus is irrelevant as they are 15 million years apart (more than enough time for this kind of growth). Phrases like "next link" are part of the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument I mentioned above. Furthermore, you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulocetus' length as reference point for refuting whale evolution.

You have misquoted me here in regards to Basilosaurus legs, and in doing so, have admitted that we have find fully aquatic whales with legs in the layers preceding modern whales

"EIAF says they were "useless" vestiges from when whales used to walk on land."

The transition from fish-to-amphibians is a transition from fins to feet, not water-to-land. Acanthostega and Icthyostega do indeed show such characteristics (more than 5 digts, but less than what we find on fins). No one says they were supposed to be land-dwellers, so your response is again, another straw man argument. This is the conclusion of the article you quote mined.

"So fingers, toes, and other elements of a vertebrate limb evolved before tetrapods spent any quality time on land."

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm

Not much of a disqualifier. The water-to-land transition can be seen with Dendrerpeton acadianum (more of a transition from ancient to modern amphibian).

Both mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, so there is nothing contradictory about finding an ancient dog-sized mammal that could eat small dinosaurs (in an era where much larger dinosaurs existed). You have to explain why we don't find Elephants, Bears, Tigers or even any of the extinct megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, or Smilodons) in the same layers as dinosaurs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html

The temporary disappearance of land animals weighing over 10 Kg from the fossil record between the Creataceous and Paleogence transition (upon which, we begin to gradually find larger and larger mammals and birds as we move up the layers) can be accounted by Faunal Succession and a meteor crashing into the earth wiping everything out except small animals, which would over time, produce larger animals to fulfill recently vacated niches. A global flood wiping out life that supposedly existed in tact all of these years cannot account for such.

Turbidity currents leave obvious traces: large and small clasts mixed together, flow marks, and hardly any fossils. Your ad hoc use of Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states in the center of the country. There is simply no evidence of such an event being the cause of the extinction of Cambrian sea life (which is why it's not taught). In addition to this most of the world's fossils are partial and disarticulated, which contradicts the idea of a quick burial (making it the exception, not the rule).

Furthermore, the lowest vertebrates we find in the fossil record, the Ostracoderms, are in fact, mostly found in freshwater deposits (meaning they weren't dwelling in ocean depths). There is also the problem of Teleost fish. This diverse class of fish dwells in multiple environments, including the ocean floor. If the flood destroyed bottom-dwellers first and buried them in the bottom layers, we should find them in the Cambrian. Yet we don't find them until the Triassic (6 Geological eras later).

So you are left with having to explain how the flood buried fresh water fish towards the bottom layers of sediment, bottom-dwelling sea creatures above, amphibians, and a myriad of land dwelling reptiles and mammals, all below whales. Archaeopteryx, and plenty other "perching birds" who according you, floated to the top, are also found below whales, and other semi-modern-to-modern mammals, including semi-aquatic mammals (like Ambulocetus and Seals) who in turn, don't show up until well above the first crocodilian and other ancient semi-aquatic reptiles (semi-aquatic creatures should have been buried uniformly right?). It also doesn't explain the huge gap between dinosaurs and megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, Indricotherium, etc), nor why we only find remnants of human civilization (ie. buildings and agriculture) in the top layers.

You have to explain why/how Kangaroos, Koalas, Thylacines (and the other marsupials limited to Australia), all uniformly up and left, solely to Australia, Dodo Birds (flightless and completely helpless against common predators) to the Mauritius islands (where such predators didn't exist until man brought them) and why/how Armadillos, Rattlesnakes, and Poison Dart Frogs scurried, slithered, and hopped solely to the new world after the flood. What prevented camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other strictly Old World animals capable of faster travel from doing the same if such a bridge was so recently available?

There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck. Erosion can cause sediment to be re-deposited. Geology 101.

You have also misquoted me with this comment;

"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless "tail" vestige."

Vestigial Organs (as defined by the Medical Dictionary) - an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.

"Completely useless" is not the meaning of vestigial, but rather the straw man definition creationists use. Aside from the medical definition of vestigial, here is the description Darwin gave.

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." - Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chap 14.

Python Spurs

1-These spurs are accompanied by a pelvic girdle (coincidently, so are legs).
2-Only males use them for mating yet females have them as well.
3-Like other snakes, python embryos have legs which they reabsorb (though pythons only reabsorb them to a point—at which point creationists believe they become spurs and not legs at all).
4-Other snakes apparently mate just fine without spurs.
5-Male pythons that have lost their spurs, apparently still mate
6-The anatomy of Pachyrhachis Problematicus (ancient fossilized snakes with limbs which we find in the same overall part of the world where we find Pythons) suggests close relationship to Pythons/Boas.
7-The tiny leg stubs we find in Pachyrhachis Problematicus wouldn't have allowed them to walk upright (therefore this doesn't validate the Genesis story).

Coccyx

Apparently we don't need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx). Coccydynia is the inflammation of the bony area (tailbone or coccyx) located between the buttocks is referred to as coccydynia. Coccydynia is associated with pain and tenderness at the tip of the tailbone between the buttocks. The pain is often worsened by sitting. The coccyx manifests itself as a TAIL in our embryonic stage, during which time it becomes reabsorbed to the point of becoming a coccyx. Evolution is stuck to "modifying what's there" whereas a Creator can create anything he/she wants. Think about it.

Wisdom Teeth

Interesting take on wisdom teeth. Now you have to explain why we're required to lose other teeth in order for these 3rd molars to become useful, and why suffering from them results from having the hygiene that allows you to keep all of our teeth.

The fossil record shows faunal succession, including transitional forms, and the creationist response to this is full of dishonest quote mining and straw man arguments.