The fossil record is quite complete russian chix.
It doesn't require faith to accept it's truth.
False.
Now watch how deftly I eviscerate your lie.
.“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles,
The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)
Where fossil records exist, they defeat Darwin's theory.
The experts say so.
a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area,
a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182
b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [
sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [
sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
c. 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.
d. ". . . 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.
e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.
