"On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin
As much as you try to FORCE fossil evidence to fit, it simply doesn't. Your so-called transitional species are a joke!!! The funny thing is Darwin claimed these GRADUAL changes happened over millions of years. We know from hard evidence on positive genetic mutations the rarity with which they occur. We also know in large populations, they are lost as fast as they appear. So with Darwin's claim of gradual changes, we should have a plethora of "inbetweeners". We don't. Darwin gives several reasons for POSSIBLY why we don't find the gradually changed species but none of them hold up under real evidence, only assumptive language of the evolotutionists saying, "it is the way it was".
Here is the simple truth that is all around us that evolutionists deny. We don't find any living transitional species, not real ones that would hold up to Darwins descriptions. What we do find alot of is a single "kind" (described in the Bible). Sometimes there are wide ranges of adaptations in the specific kinds, but they are still that kind.
Let's look at dogs for instance. With intelligent direction guiding the process, we have many different breeds. We have tall ones, short ones, skinny ones, wrinkled-skin ones, ones with pug noses, ones with long snouts, short hair, long hair, long tails, short tails, big heads on little bodies, big bodies with little heads. But guess what??? They are all dogs!!! Darwinists tell us that everything alive came from a common ancestor so let's assume for an instant that elephants came from dogs. How long do you think it would take a breeder to get a fully functional elephant trunk on a dog. Remember, we are assuming an intelligent force (the breeder) could note that a small wart like structure on the dog's nose was a positive genetic mutation that could someday turn into the muscular appendage capable of grasping fruit and inserting it into its mouth. The question remains: how do we get from a piece of skin or bump on a dog's nose to the complex trunk we see on the elephant, even with intelligent intervention? The answer is we don't! And there ain't a shred of scientific evidence that could ever prove this could happen. It amazes me that so called "intelligent people" like Loki actually buy into the absurdity. It is like a mass brain washing. Not only would it be impossible for the breeder to make it happen, how much more impossible would it be for un-guided forces to recognize the lump might one day be a trunk and keep it around for a few million years to give it time to develop muscles and nerves and the associated neurons to give it the proper commands to function. This is absurdity at every level. Yet it is what a bunch of atheists masquerading as "Scientists" have fed the ignorant masses hook, line and sinker. Absolute stupidity in high places.
Now before some Einstein makes the claim that elephants didn't come from dogs, go back and read my post. I am just using this as an example. How even more stupid and completely devoid of all reason and logic is the belief that an Ecoli could become a human. Of course to Darwinists, the gods of Time and Random Mutations and Natural Selection can do some pretty darn amazing miracles.
