You are wrong. Arguing against conventional evolution right or wrong is mostly about arguing science. It is very much not CT oriented, nothing like it. You believe it or not based on the facts as presented. Ever see a fish turn into a person? Ever see fossil intermediates fish to people? I am not saying I do or don't believe here. This makes me dizzy. But I am saying I have never seen a fish turn into a woman. I am also saying there are no fossil intermediates fish to woman. So until then, it's open season on that theory .
You're wrong. Creationists come in two varieties: those who have been fooled and who haven't looked at the data, and those who know better but lie to folks. Neither gives a rat's tale about the data--the former because they generally aren't that interested in the scientific issues, and the latter because they're defrauding their followers. Then there's the Wedge Document. There IS a conspiracy going on--a group of people lying to us in order to advance a specific agenda.
As for evolution, if you think that it involves fish turning into humans, you don't understand the theory. You quite literally may as well say that since your grandfather doesn't turn into your child, they therefore are not related. Our ancestors--incredibly distant ancestors--were fish. Through an absolutely mind-shattering length of time subsequent generations adapted to numerous conditions, and one branch of those became terrestrial vertebrates. More time, more variation, more branches, and one became mammals. Then more time, more variation, more branches, and one became humans. These aren't simply assumed; we have a tremendous fossil record recording these changes. Any textbook on vertebrate paleontology will outline this for you (and it's only an outline--the actual literature is orders of magnitude larger than even the largest textbook you can get).
Also, I HAVE seen the intermediate fossils. The Smithsonian has some, as does the natural history museum in Milan. The fish that became tetrapod vertebrates are quite famous in my profession. There was a rather serious revision of our assumptions about evolution regarding the number of digits on limbs, and I believe it was Acanthostega that demonstrated that five was not the maximum number of digits. Those are intermediate between fish and reptiles. Then the repptiles gave rise to the mammal-like reptiles, such as the gorgons (see Peter Ward's book by the same name). After the K/Pg impact mammals exploded, and innumerable fossils from "shrew-like thing" to "human" have been found, including an astonishing number of fossils in the human group (considering the environs in which these critters lived, ANY fossils are astonishing, and we have so many that some believe we actually have fossils from within the speciation events!).
They exist; you just have to look. And by "look" I don't mean that you need to go to a museum. This is an incredibly rich and well-established field of science, pulling from physics, engineering, biology, geology, some astronomy, oceanography, chemistry, meteorology, and numerous other fields. Oh, and the skills to survive in some rather nasty environments (fossils don't generally outcrop in places people like to live--though the Los Angeles Basin is a notable exception). I was recently reminded that skills such as being able to identify poisonous snakes and do a 100-meter dash at speeds that would make some track and field folks jealous (while hip-deep in water) are rather essential. Freaking cottonmouths...
Even if we didn't have transitional forms for humans, we have them for other animals. Gould found a surprising number of intermediate forms in gastropods and mollusks. I've got a brother-in-law that's found intermediate forms in conodonts (formS, meaning multiple). And I myself have found an intermediate for within Decapoda. And what's REALLY damning to your argument is these excited no comment from the paleontological community. I was told that my work was solid, but nothing that would make me famous because that's what everyone is doing. Feldman found a LOT more intermediate forms of decapods, if anyone's interested--enough that he could figure out the geography of their evolution. Then there's the issues with horse evolution; Eric Scott out of the San Bernardino natural history museum is still sort of the expert on that. If you want verts, I recommend "Tertiary Mammals of North America" and "The Dinosauria"; both offer a large number of intermediate forms in their respective taxa. For a case study I recommend
Bison antiquis--they're currently debating exactly what happened to them, with one serious proposal (one I'm rather fond of) is that
B. antiquis evolved wholesale into the modern bison. Even if you disagree, though, the debate is certainly worth reading given the question about intermediate forms (it's something of a key issue here).
I don't know enough about paleobotony to comment. My paleobotanical studies have been restricted to Neotoma middens in the Quaternary, where most transition was in the form of range extenssions/contractions, rather than speciation. But what I know of palanology indicates that animals may not be the best place to look for transitional forms--plants may be superior, just understudied. But again, that's just a tentative inclination, not a conclusion; if someone could provide some information on that I for one would appreciate it.
You are correct in one respect: it IS open-season on evolution. The theory is constantly under fire, constantly under revision. In fact, it's never been closed season; science has attacked the theory of evolution pretty much since the start, and some of the best minds in history (and some that make Sheldon Cooper look downright normal) have stood opposed to evolution as we knokw it. The issue is, you need to learn at least one sub-field in order to mount a serious criticism--or at the very least you must understand what the theory states. "Ever see a fish turn into a person?" is a gross mischaracterization of the theory. Learn what the theory actually is before you attempt to criticize it. Otherwise you make your side look bad.
