I'll clarify
I accept drawings if it is depiction of fossil found
not imaginary pics of what a "supposed" transitional fossil is
Even so, showing a lager horse head and a smaller horse head and saying the smaller gave way to the larger cause its smaller doesn't make it so
Show fossils that show the progression of the leg bones angle and how the hip changed
something like that
not a pic of a monkey, an ape, a man and sayin
Presto evolution
Again dont dodge this one,
Specifically show fossils above the cambrian layer remotely resembling fossils IN the cambrian fossil layer
300 million years of evolution before cambrian explosion should have fossils
You think?
Also again,
DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM?
Of course they're drawings of the fossils.. they're not just someones guess of what existed.. those species exist and are documented in the fossil records..
The evolution of the horses legs / toes were in the picture.. as well as the date the species lives.. you can follow, step by step, the evolution of the horse. If you want to actually learn something why not type in the names of each of the species and look at the fossils found etc.. You do know how to internet, don't you?
The evidence as found in the fossil record exists and in the age of the internet, is easily accessible.
How about, instead of arguing about something you know nothing about, you educate yourself..
Or do you just like the attention?
If you'd bothered reading through my earlier links..
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Are you going to read it and ignore it or are you going to just ignore it?
Here's the first point of debunking your claim (there's many more than 1)
The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
Im SAYING it is ludacris to say you need millions and millions of invisible mutations for evolution to work but you can have organisms that just screech to a halt for millions and millions and millions and millions and millions etc of years and think it is possible it will some how kick back in today.
Two points coming from nothing but ignorance.
Not only are "living fossils" genetically different to species that looked similar, there is no reason why evolution MUST HAVE caused a genetic mutation significant enough to allow it to survive when others did not..
I'm willing to bet their are hundreds, thousands, millions of genetic mutations found in some animals of some species that we just don't know about.. genetic mutations found in species do not necessarily exist in every animal of that species.. Not every person has the same colour eyes, the same skin tone, the immunity to HIV and the ability to see millions of colours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
If you can accept that these mutations happened, why is so hard to grasp that sometimes a mutation (such of a photosensitive cell emerging) will give the creature a much higher chance of surviving and reproducing, each of it's offspring having that advantage, each having a higher chance of reproducing, each of their offspring passing on the trait?
Evolution doesn't mean a mutation will kill of every other one of the species without it (as you seem to think).. Sometimes (most times) an evolutionary trait will branch off, leaving both those with it and those without.. Your question about the layers above the cambrian showing fossils found in it doesn't suggest that evolution stopped.. It doesn't have to go A to B to C.. It can go A to A and B to A and B and C to A and A1 and B and C (A1 branching from A but not killing off A, having no mutations that B had, while C branched off from B, again, not killing off B)..
Previous transitional stages will sometimes eventually be killed off for a number of reasons, like competing for food and resources, or because the latter form was better at evading predators..
Going back to the new species of finch we observed happen.. the new finch could crack open and eat nuts AND be able to drink nectar from flowers (thanks to it's beak).. The "parents" can only do either or.. They're all still alive because there is enough resources, however, if there was a food shortage of both nuts and flowers, the new finch will be able to get enough food by using both, while it's "parents" will start starving off where they can only eat half of what the new one can.
Capiche?
I literally thought you meant AE.
How about deer that cause road accidents?
