- Thread starter
- #201
Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution. You're welcome to ignore them since they don't support your argument but you don't know what fossils have yet to found.'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.
I see you've reverted to a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. We don't currently have evidence so the evidence cannot exist.
"Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution."
Consistent with every other post of yours, this one is wrong as well.
Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution. You're welcome to ignore them since they don't support your argument but you don't know what fossils have yet to found.'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.
I see you've reverted to a version of the "God of the gaps" argument. We don't currently have evidence so the evidence cannot exist.
"Every fossil every found does verify Darwinian evolution."
Actually....not a single one does.
'Fossils' only applies to this discussion if they verify Darwinian evolution.
I showed that that is not the case.
Clean off your specs, and read slowly:
1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210
2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
3. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
4. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
5. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
Once again, I achieve a victory over ignorance.