1. Archeopterix has not been debunked. It is certainly not just a bird.
2. Also I don't know why you think Tiktaalik has been debunked. Tiktaalik isn't even the only organism in the land-animal evolution sequence.
3. No sequences are completely smooth because fossilization is not near perfect, which is why I said generally smooth,
4. however that might be unrealistic for most transitional records if they only include a few fossils.
5. Also evolution is not a line of fossils, but really a bush
6. so while there is a general trend to one kind of form to another, if we discover side branches instead of the trunk, the transitions will look less smooth.
7. So what we should find is a strong correlation between the strata a fossil is found and how similar it is to the recent form that exists today.
8. The best examples are horse evolution and human evolution.
9. Below we see the smooth correlation between brain size and time in human evolution. http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2201 http://www.geo.arizo...4/00lect13.html
1. Considering that in first year we had an evolutionist lecturer claim that Archopteryx was great evidence of evolution, and then on the last lecture we had a scientist that studies birds for a living come and say that recent evidence has now shown that Archeopteryx is not a transitional, rather a offshoot (dead end) species.
2. Fossil footprints depicting a reptile like gait that are dated millions of years earlier than the earliest Tiktaalik fossil debunks it.. How? It totally mucks up the transition timeline, meaning Tiktaalik and all the other fossils that neatly fitted with Tiktaalik are now out of place... Additionally if land based animals existed before Tiktaalik then the "new niche habitat" selection pressure is waived, as well as the risk of predators which can feast on the struggling transition, (which would not be in the optimal form to resist predators).
Now you could take a positon of blind faith and claim that perhaps they existed earlier than the fossils. Firstly there is no evidence for that, we try and not delve into hypothetical imagination land here so if that is the best evolutionists have to keep Tiktaalik in the game then I can't see how that is science...
3. Care to show some?
4. So you agree they are not smooth or generally smooth?
5. Yet each species does leave "line" of transitional fossils. As per your post #17
"I am talking about where we find a string of fossils that are similar and are on adjascent layers of the fossil record, and form a general smooth continuum from one kind of form to another."
A string of fossils and a general smooth continum can be likened to a "line" yes?
6. Assuming that evolution is true and that there are "side branches" to begin with
7. That is what evolutionists hang their hopes on
8. Really... Horse "evolution" is plagued with problems. First the fossils are located all over the world, meaning either the transitional forms could fly / teleport or that the evolutionist is being really hopeful with his / her data. Secondly each of the transitions have different rib counts sometimes the amount increases between "transitions" sometimes it decreases... Such is not what would be observed if these all came from one another.
9. Brain size doesn't demonstrate a change from chimp-ancestor to humans.