Section from Fred Williams article, [Creation Digest] Fossil Illusion:

"The Sleight‑of‑Hand. Here's the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil."

Some of the best evidence of evolution is found in invertebrates. In Ostracods, Leperditia shows major changes in the Silurian when it migrated into brackish water environments from normal marine. It is not even necessary to look at old evidence, virtually every species of living Ostracod shows evolution from the Miocene to now. That single order of invertebrates is one of the most successful life forms on the planet; they have radiated into just about every niche there is, including leaf litter in forests.

Clearly Fred has never spoken to a paleontologist.

I am a paleontologist and a Catholic. I believe in God, I believe that God created life on Earth and I know that it then evolved.

Vince Williams
vince@hollywell‑house.fsnetco.uk
 

You claim Leperditia underwent "major changes" in its migration to brackish water from normal marine. Do these "major changes" constitute microevolution, or macroevolution? If the former, then we have no dispute and your claim does not help evolutionary theory. If the latter, what evidence do you have that the changes show macroevolution? One could argue there are major differences between a Chihuahua and a St Bernard, but we know they are the same species. So based on observable differences alone I have every right to be skeptical. Please tell me why I should be otherwise convinced that Leperditia is evidence for NeoDarwinian evolution. I submit that Leperditia is still Leperditia.

But let's get to the heart of the problem.

If evolution is true, you should be able to point me to a myriad of fossils showing the origin of the Ostracods. Where are the ancestors?

Perhaps you are aware that the discovery of an amazingly well‑preserved Ostrocod in the early Cambrian makes this task even more difficult (Siveter, Williams, Waloszek, Science 293, 2001). BTW, do you believe the fossil record shows Darwinian evolution, or do you espouse the anti‑Darwinian view of punctuated equilibrium?

I agree with Warren that genomics will play a more significant role in the future in our debate on origins because it is a science less prone to subjectivity. A key player in genomics is the field of information science.

You state that you know life evolved; I state that I know with 100% certainty that life could not have evolved because information science renders it impossible. There are no known examples in the universe of a code ever originating via natural processes. A code always necessitates an intelligent sender. I can state this as confidently as I can state that letting go of a rock will cause the rock to fall, or that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot source. I am 100% certain of all these facts. If you are aware of any counter examples to these facts please let me know. :)

Evolutionists were doomed when they incorporated random mutation in the mid 30s as a fundamental tenet of their theory. Information science has overwhelmingly demonstrated that randomness (mistakes in the DNA copying process) guided by a blind selection process cannot possibly lead to the accumulation of new, specific information.

We have performed countless experiments on rapidly reproducing species such as drosophila, yet all we have netted is a less‑viable fly, always the result of a deterioration of genetic information, as expected based on laws of information. We have yet to witness a single provocative example of new genetic information where the mutated species is clearly more viable than the parent species in a normal environment.

Remember that evolution demands that enormous amounts of genetic information must have accumulated over time to produce the vast array of life we see today. While the fossil record is surely a problem for NeoDarwinian, the information problem is an even greater dagger in the heart of the naturalists; it has proven to be the death knell of the theory of evolution, and powerful evidence for Intelligent Design.

(BTW, I live on the planet earth. :)

Sincerely,

Fred Williams
Fredw@usa.com