[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by stonedape

And the award for loosest and most misleading use of the word "transform" goes to...ElProximo!!!! This isn't Disney sparkles we're talking about, it's populations, death and survival, reproduction, inheritance, mutation, etc in a changing environment. It's actually relatively boring and only controversial for some people already attached to creation myths.

You used the term. You know of a fossil which (much like David's reasoning) had some shape 'closer too' another kind of species and so you imagine that it was 'transitional'.
'Transforming'. That is what you are saying. Transforming.
A Dinosaur born with 'feather numbs' has 'transformed' from it's parents. the 'form' is different.
You believe that some frog-like critter transformed into Princes today. More amazingly - not just one time but over trillions of days of transforming.

But David just used the same 'science' seen today among evolutionists who may find a fossil.
The fossil is an amphibian but yet has long fins. So they imagine that this means the animal was 'transforming' (transitional) into what would become legs.
The 'evidence' is that it has longer fins. Legs are long. There ya go.

David use the same science of morphology when they saw someone whos jaw and nose was extending further out.
a 'transitional form'.
Since wolves have even longer more extended jaws then (using evolutionists reasoning) therefore, given more time, the mans nose and jaw would eventually become a snout.
Like a wolf.
The saw the 'transitional' jaw and nose so they KNOW THIS and its called SCIENCE.

BTW.. don't try and argue 'micro macro' with him because he can simply show you that 'macro' is just 'many micros'. So what argument can you make against him?