Yes.
. AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY YOU'RE WRONG INSTEAD OF JUST GAINSAYING IT LIKE BELIEVERS DO.
It's because in each stratum the earliest and latest versions of fossils are usually almost identical. This COULD NOT be true if Evolution existed.
Another bare claim.
I'm not interested in you just "telling" us things. You do enough of that all day long.
I'm interested in what you can
support with evidence.
Bare claims aren't evidence.
Meanwhile, look above. Just as I said: the older the fossil of the whale ancestor, the more to the front the nostrils are.
The younger they are, the more to the top of the head the nostrils are located.
Derp di derp derp.
Yes.
If aging is gradual, then the older the pictures of the man, the more child-like his face will be.
The younger the pictures, the more middle-aged-man-like it will be.
Off course, we can't for obvious practical reasons show you a picture of his face of every second of his life, so that you can see the exact series of gradual change from second to second.
Just like we can't show you a fossil of
every generation of whale ancestors from 50 million years ago till today.
Nor is it required. Like
@Subduction Zone has told you several times already (yet it keeps falling on deaf ears): evidence are those things that support the thesis under review and / or which match the predictions of said thesis.
The fossil record
perfectly matches the predictions and expectations of gradual change.
Just like Cruise's picture match the predictions and expectations of gradual aging.
You? You have yet to share a SINGLE thing you expect to see in the world under your very weird thesis. You have yet to mention a SINGLE testable prediction naturally flowing from your thesis.
We can't even BEGIN to talk about potential evidence for your bizar thesis until you share such expectations / predictions. You have yet to do so.
So far, all we got from you are bare assertions, like in this post which amounts to nothing more then:
"NO! ME RIGHT, YOU WRONG, PERIOD".
Even if people still lived for 986 years one generation does not constitute "gradual change". I have repeatedly defined "sudden" as three or more generations so you are creating strawmen and moving the goal posts.
Please provide a single example of something akin to a land walking mammal giving birth to a sea dwelling creature with flippers over the course of "3 or more generations" - which is equally ridiculous as 1 generation btw.
Now you can just say "nuh uh" like that's an actual argument.
I'm not saying "nuh uh", nor have I ever done so. In fact, I invest quite some time and energy in trying to build a case with evidence and references, specifically geared to NOT just saying "nuhuh" or making bare assertions, because I consider that to be very dishonest and actually rather insulting to the people I converse with.
Instead, I'm asking you to provide evidence and examples of your still bare assertions.
What expectations does your thesis have?
What are the testable predictions?
What data matches those expectations and predictions?
Now you can just repeat your bare assertion and pretend as if you saying so is all the evidence required.