More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[Clyde 154]

Kwazy Kweationist Deniers say there's "No evidence".
This is one of the best of an Overwhelming body of such.
People get convicted of crimes, including murder, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on cases that are not as strong as the one for Evo.
Good circumstantial cases are better than eyewitness ones. The latter being the "proof" kweationists goofily demand.

With these Vestiges, DNA, etc, life can traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us and other MAMMALS, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An 'immaculate' creation event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

Article heavily edited. Only about 5% here, and no pix.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

[....]Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy.​

[....] these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do-they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during Macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions....​

​

Confirmation:​

.....For example..independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (Mexican tetra)... are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....​

[....]​

The ancestors of Humans are known to have been Herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).​

Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted. These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death.​

​

Another Vestige of our Herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​

​

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the Coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects..​

[.....]​

Real "scientific" terms. Let's count the subjective BS terms used and then declared true beyond a reason of doubt. The very first line used.......is nothing but an attempt to establish "prima facie" truth, not based upon factual information but opinion that presents itself as beyond the reason to doubt. Your list of diatribe contains nothing but subjective rhetoric. Counting down terms that are as far from applied science as the day is different from the night.

1. Profess 2. Appear 3. Predict 4. Should............the list goes on and on....... the article suggests that evolution has occurred because of the differences within the Reptile Family....yet, a snake, a lizard...etc., regardless of legs or not are WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.....the reptilian family. There are over 10700 members of the reptile family, yet not one reptile has evolved into anything other than a reptile. Of course..........there are DNA traits that are dormant within all species, these dormant traits come to surface when a species or subspecies needs to adapt to its environment.....all life is such equipped. If this trait was not designed into life............mankind would have became extinct the very first time he encountered the common cold virus. But there is a difference between vertical evolution and horizontal evolution. Horizontal evolution is supported in the Holy Bible..........vertical or evolution outside of species has never been proven beyond the shadow of doubt. In Fact: Abiogenesis has been directly debunked by application of science.


Science agrees with the Bible. Life can procreate only within the same species "each after its own kind" -- Genesis 1:24. Of course those that drafted this article about evolution outside of species has never read about the experiment by Louis Pasteur that debunked abiogenesis and proved that life can only be reproduced by preexisting life within species..........this was proven to be a confirmed fact via the application of the Scientific Method of experimentation. 1. Observation 2. Reproducible upon each application and 3. Consistent in premise upon each application. Pasteur's experiment has never been refuted by application of science.

 

[scruffy]

.There are over 10700 members of the reptile family, yet not one reptile has evolved into anything other than a reptile.

Oh look, fresh meat.

Your statement is a conjecture. You have zero proof of it.

Whereas I offer the following scientific evidence derived from the sequencing of Hox genes in reptilian and non-reptilian species:

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

"Recent studies conducted on both mouse and snakes now hint at how changes inside the gene regulatory circuitries of the Hox genes and the somitogenesis clock likely underlie these striking departures from standard tetrapod morphology, suggesting scenarios by which snakes and other elongated species may have evolved from more ordinarily bodied ancestors."

Just so you know, "reptiles" are not a species. Not even a clade.

Here is a particularly interesting and beautiful reptile. Can you describe the purpose of the comb and the pouch?

 

[toobfreak]

Just so you know, "reptiles" are not a species. Not even a clade.

Reptiles are merely one of the early classes of chordate.

Here is a particularly interesting and beautiful reptile. Can you describe the purpose of the comb and the pouch?

Obviously, the comb is to stay neat looking for the female reptiles (or to possibly regulate body temperature), and the pouch is for holding change for the subway turnstile.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Real "scientific" terms. Let's count the subjective BS terms used and then declared true beyond a reason of doubt. The very first line used.......is nothing but an attempt to establish "prima facie" truth, not based upon factual information but opinion that presents itself as beyond the reason to doubt. Your list of diatribe contains nothing but subjective rhetoric. Counting down terms that are as far from applied science as the day is different from the night.

1. Profess 2. Appear 3. Predict 4. Should............the list goes on and on....... the article suggests that evolution has occurred because of the differences within the Reptile Family....yet, a snake, a lizard...etc., regardless of legs or not are WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.....the reptilian family. There are over 10700 members of the reptile family, yet not one reptile has evolved into anything other than a reptile. Of course..........there are DNA traits that are dormant within all species, these dormant traits come to surface when a species or subspecies needs to adapt to its environment.....all life is such equipped. If this trait was not designed into life............mankind would have became extinct the very first time he encountered the common cold virus. But there is a difference between vertical evolution and horizontal evolution. Horizontal evolution is supported in the Holy Bible..........vertical or evolution outside of species has never been proven beyond the shadow of doubt. In Fact: Abiogenesis has been directly debunked by application of science.


Science agrees with the Bible. Life can procreate only within the same species "each after its own kind" -- Genesis 1:24. Of course those that drafted this article about evolution outside of species has never read about the experiment by Louis Pasteur that debunked abiogenesis and proved that life can only be reproduced by preexisting life within species..........this was proven to be a confirmed fact via the application of the Scientific Method of experimentation. 1. Observation 2. Reproducible upon each application and 3. Consistent in premise upon each application. Pasteur's experiment has never been refuted by application of science.

Hahahaha

I would advise you not to try out this act in a room of educated people. You will get laughed out of the room.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh look, fresh meat.

Your statement is a conjecture. You have zero proof of it.

Whereas I offer the following scientific evidence derived from the sequencing of Hox genes in reptilian and non-reptilian species:

View attachment 1056549

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

"Recent studies conducted on both mouse and snakes now hint at how changes inside the gene regulatory circuitries of the Hox genes and the somitogenesis clock likely underlie these striking departures from standard tetrapod morphology, suggesting scenarios by which snakes and other elongated species may have evolved from more ordinarily bodied ancestors."

Just so you know, "reptiles" are not a species. Not even a clade.

View attachment 1056557

Here is a particularly interesting and beautiful reptile. Can you describe the purpose of the comb and the pouch?

View attachment 1056559

Please show fossil evidence that the first vertebrates evolved. To be credible we really need to see evidence of the initial appearance of a backbone and the preceding organism that did not have one, we'd expect that these two specimens BBB (before backbone) and ABB (after backbone) would be morphologically very very close, as macroscopic changes within a few generations is inconsistent with the claimed evolutionary process.

Unfortunately you will be unable to provide such evidence, the fossil record (all of it) does not reveal continuity of changes in morphology but huge discontinuity.

Discontinuity is in fact the hallmark of the entire fossil record, how can discontinuous specimens prove a continuous process? the evidence actually shows a discontinuous process and evolution is purported to take place via successive miniscule and infrequent changes in the genome on a generation by generation basis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please show fossil evidence that the first vertebrates evolved.

What would some of that evidence look like?

A couple ideas. Thanks.

Then we will try to accommodate you.

 

[abu afak]

Please show fossil evidence that the first vertebrates evolved. To be credible we really need to see evidence of the initial appearance of a backbone and the preceding organism that did not have one, we'd expect that these two specimens BBB (before backbone) and ABB (after backbone) would be morphologically very very close, as macroscopic changes within a few generations is inconsistent with the claimed evolutionary process.

Unfortunately you will be unable to provide such evidence, the fossil record (all of it) does not reveal continuity of changes in morphology but huge discontinuity.

Discontinuity is in fact the hallmark of the entire fossil record, how can discontinuous specimens prove a continuous process? the evidence actually shows a discontinuous process and evolution is purported to take place via successive miniscule and infrequent changes in the genome on a generation by generation basis.

AI Overview
Learn more

The earliest fossil evidence of vertebrates comes from the Cambrian period, with small, fish-like creatures like "Haikouichthys" and "Pikaia" found in the Chengjiang locality of China, showcasing features like a notochord, brain, eyes, and rudimentary vertebrae, indicating the presence of a primitive backbone; these early vertebrates were primarily jawless fish, similar to modern lampreys and hagfish, with some being heavily armored, leaving behind robust fossil records.

Key points about early vertebrate fossils:

• Jawless fish:
  The first vertebrates were jawless fish (Agnathans) which appeared in the Cambrian period.
  
  
• Early examples:
  Fossils like Haikouichthys and Pikaia are considered among the earliest vertebrates.
  
  
• Body structure:
  These early fish had a streamlined body, with a notochord and rudimentary vertebrae.
  
  
• Armor:
  Some early vertebrates had heavy bony armor, which helped preserve their fossils.
  
  
• Location:
  Many of the earliest vertebrate fossils have been found in China.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What would some of that evidence look like?

A couple ideas. Thanks.

Then we will try to accommodate you.

You could simply read what I posted, it's all in there, but since that seems to tax your faculties I'll repeat it here:

To be credible we really need to see evidence of the initial appearance of a backbone and the preceding organism that did not have one, we'd expect that these two specimens BBB (before backbone) and ABB (after backbone) would be morphologically very very close, as macroscopic changes within a few generations is inconsistent with the claimed evolutionary process.

Of course you'll find no such fossil evidence because the fossil record is discontinuous and you can't use a discontinuous record as evidence of a continuous process.

A record with continuity is evidence of a continuous process but a record that is discontinuities could be evidence of a continuous or discontinuous process.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here, here's an explanation as to why the fossil record doesn't really record anything other than arbitrary random samples (this is the main reason that the pseudoscientific "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis was originally cobbled together).

Discontinuities in the Fossil Record | Evolution News

The fossil record generally documents a discontinuous history of life with sudden appearances of new body plans and new forms of life in saltational events.

evolutionnews.org

 

[abu afak]

Here, here's an explanation as to why the fossil record doesn't really record anything other than arbitrary random samples (this is the main reason that the pseudoscientific "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis was originally cobbled together).

View attachment 1057547

Discontinuities in the Fossil Record | Evolution News

The fossil record generally documents a discontinuous history of life with sudden appearances of new body plans and new forms of life in saltational events.

evolutionnews.org

1. You didn't anser my post/citation. You didn't quote me to avoid the info and pic.
2. "EvolutionNews" is the 'Discovery Institute,' a Kweationist/ID website.
(Like AnswersInGenepiss and Creation.com.)
3. You're a Joke and now a self-declared Lying-for-Jesus FRAUD. No different than Jehovah's WitLess PoliticSheik.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

From the above article

Every theory makes certain predictions and these predictions have to be tested with empirical evidence. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution necessarily predicts a gradual development of life. Therefore he insisted on gradualism, against the advice of his good friend Thomas Huxley. Darwin quoted in his magnum opus The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) not less that six times the Latin dictum “natura non facit saltus”, nature does not make jumps, because he wanted to present a fully naturalistic explanation for the history of life on our planet, knowing perfectly well that saltations would have tacitly implied miracle-like intelligent interventions. The prediction of gradualism is not accidental and not a dispensable side issue in Darwinism. This was made clear by Richard Dawkins, arguably the most ardent modern popularizer of Darwinism, in his bestselling book The Greatest Show on Earth (Dawkins 2009), where he explicitly clarified that “Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.”

The fossil record by it's global characteristic of being discontinuous is evidence of a non-gradual, discontinuous mechanism - not Darwinism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You could simply read what I posted, it's all in there, but since that seems to tax your faculties I'll repeat it here:



Of course you'll find no such fossil evidence because the fossil record is discontinuous and you can't use a discontinuous record as evidence of a continuous process.

A record with continuity is evidence of a continuous process but a record that is discontinuities could be evidence of a continuous or discontinuous process.

This is of course an idiotic demand:

"To be credible we really need to see evidence of the initial appearance of a backbone and the preceding organism that did not have one"

"The preceding organism" is an idiotic statement and concept that betrays a profound ignorance of the basic facts of the physical universe and of evolutionary theory. This would get you admonished in a freshman biology class and laughed out of a room of educated adults.

"Inital appearance of the backbone" -- in regards to a single individual or species -- is also a profoundly stupid idea that betrays abject ignorance in the universe and in the ttheory. The gradual changes of evolution do not work this way.


Of course, the global scientific community has found copious evidence of the evolution of the backbone. Early versions and later versions, all lined up chronologically, with never an item out of order. And none of the concepts you mentioned are required. In fact, they are profoundly stupid and would not ever exist. Nor does evolutionary theory predict or require that they would exist. In fact, precisely the OPPOSITE.


You sure do find some stupid peope to quote. Or ignorant. Or just dishonest.


To review: Your understanding of evolution is so poor that the concepts of "evidence" you managed to eke out would not only not be evidence of evolution, but are specifically ruled out by the theory of evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One thing is constant and as predictable as the sunrise:

The evolution deniers know LESS THAN NOTHING about evolution.

They don't grasp the most basic, fundamental concepts. They don't know or understand any of the evidence.

"The Preceding Organism"

Anyone who understands evolution knows how absurd such a concept is. But look at our poor deniers, stating it with confidence. It's hilarious, I admit. Their confidence makes it funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kwazy Kweationist Deniers say there's "No evidence".
This is one of the best of an Overwhelming body of such.
People get convicted of crimes, including murder, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on cases that are not as strong as the one for Evo.
Good circumstantial cases are better than eyewitness ones. The latter being the "proof" kweationists goofily demand.

With these Vestiges, DNA, etc, life can traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us and other MAMMALS, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An 'immaculate' creation event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

Article heavily edited. Only about 5% here, and no pix.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

[....]Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy.​

[....] these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do-they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during Macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions....​

​

Confirmation:​

.....For example..independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (Mexican tetra)... are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....​

[....]​

The ancestors of Humans are known to have been Herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).​

Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted. These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death.​

​

Another Vestige of our Herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."​

​

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the Coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects..​

[.....]​

If we all “evolved” from the sea, how come it’s deadly to drink salt water?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If we all “evolved” from the sea, how come it’s deadly to drink salt water?

Same reason we don't still have fins.

 

[abu afak]

Here, here's an explanation as to why the fossil record doesn't really record anything other than arbitrary random samples (this is the main reason that the pseudoscientific "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis was originally cobbled together).

View attachment 1057547

Discontinuities in the Fossil Record | Evolution News

The fossil record generally documents a discontinuous history of life with sudden appearances of new body plans and new forms of life in saltational events.

evolutionnews.org

1. You didn't answer my post/citation. You didn't quote me to avoid the info and pic.
2. "EvolutionNews" is the 'Discovery Institute,' a Kweationist/ID website.
(Like AnswersInGenepiss and Creation.com.)
3. You're a Joke and now a self-declared Lying-for-Jesus FRAUD. No different than Jehovah's WitLess PoliticSheik.
`

 

[scruffy]

AI Overview
Learn more

View attachment 1057515
The earliest fossil evidence of vertebrates comes from the Cambrian period, with small, fish-like creatures like "Haikouichthys" and "Pikaia" found in the Chengjiang locality of China, showcasing features like a notochord, brain, eyes, and rudimentary vertebrae, indicating the presence of a primitive backbone; these early vertebrates were primarily jawless fish, similar to modern lampreys and hagfish, with some being heavily armored, leaving behind robust fossil records.

Key points about early vertebrate fossils:

• Jawless fish:
  The first vertebrates were jawless fish (Agnathans) which appeared in the Cambrian period.
  
  
• Early examples:
  Fossils like Haikouichthys and Pikaia are considered among the earliest vertebrates.
  
  
• Body structure:
  These early fish had a streamlined body, with a notochord and rudimentary vertebrae.
  
  
• Armor:
  Some early vertebrates had heavy bony armor, which helped preserve their fossils.
  
  
• Location:
  Many of the earliest vertebrate fossils have been found in China.

One of the interesting things about agnathans is their immune system.

Instead of the lymphocytes found in most vertebrates ("specialized immune cells"), lampreys and hagfish bind antigens using cell surface proteins.

The diversity of these proteins is on the order of 10^14.

We were talking about combinatorial explosion. This is a prime example. This is WITHIN A SINGLE CELL, in other words there is DNA that codes for this diversity, that's passed down from one generation to the next.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/agnatha

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

1. You didn't answer my post/citation. You didn't quote me to avoid the info and pic.
2. "EvolutionNews" is the 'Discovery Institute,' a Kweationist/ID website.
(Like AnswersInGenepiss and Creation.com.)
3. You're a Joke and now a self-declared Lying-for-Jesus FRAUD. No different than Jehovah's WitLess PoliticSheik.
`

You're a hysterical pseudoscience advocate, I take no interest in anything you say. You're beyond help, you've embraced your cult and loyally and angrily defined it at all cost. I do not post for you or your buddy scruffy but for those with an open mind who are willing to think rationally.

I do and will continue to, expose your specious arguments and distortions of reality so get used to it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is of course an idiotic demand:

"To be credible we really need to see evidence of the initial appearance of a backbone and the preceding organism that did not have one"

"The preceding organism" is an idiotic statement and concept that betrays a profound ignorance of the basic facts of the physical universe and of evolutionary theory. This would get you admonished in a freshman biology class and laughed out of a room of educated adults.

"Inital appearance of the backbone" -- in regards to a single individual or species -- is also a profoundly stupid idea that betrays abject ignorance in the universe and in the ttheory. The gradual changes of evolution do not work this way.


Of course, the global scientific community has found copious evidence of the evolution of the backbone.

Sadly that's a leap of faith. For example there's no evidence that trilobites evolved, there's no evidence of a gradually morphing organism spanning the hundreds of thousands of generations that must have taken place - if evolution were true.

Early versions and later versions, all lined up chronologically, with never an item out of order.

Anyone can organize specimens as they want, the record is discontinuous though, the Cambrian explosion is the best example of this. It is paleontologists that even describe that as "sudden" they would not use that term if there was any evidence of continuity.

And none of the concepts you mentioned are required. In fact, they are profoundly stupid and would not ever exist. Nor does evolutionary theory predict or require that they would exist. In fact, precisely the OPPOSITE.

A animal with no spine is never going to give birth to an animal with a spine.

You sure do find some stupid peope to quote. Or ignorant. Or just dishonest.

The term you're looking for here is "well informed" I've been studying the Cambrian for decades.

To review: Your understanding of evolution is so poor that the concepts of "evidence" you managed to eke out would not only not be evidence of evolution, but are specifically ruled out by the theory of evolution.

What does evolution rule out? it does not rule out gradualism because it is based on gradualism. Seeking credible evidence of gradualism is therefore a test of the hypothesis yet it fails that test.

The Cambrian beasts appear unannounced in the record, fully developed hard shelled life appears in the record abruptly with no trace of morphologically credible precursors.

What's more these same fossil beds also have fossilized tiny jellyfish and embryos, extremely delicate organisms yet they are there preserved in the preceding strata - this proves that conditions for fossilization were ideal for the purported Cambrian ancestors yet they are not found - nowhere on earth where we find Cambrian fossils do we find credible precursors despite the fact the conditions were perfect - they are not there - they did not exist and you have no evidence that they ever did only supposition and conjecture.

For most of the time after life first appeared it did not change, there was about 2 billion years of nothing but single celled life, stasis is what the record shows for that period not change.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

To all of the indoctrinated evolution cult members, please show me the evidence for the gradual development of life. In the absence of such evidence why is it not appropriate to consider that Darwinian evolution might not have taken place?

The fossil record does not show gradualism. What we have are well defined and demarcated specimens already in an advanced state of development and upon that has been imposed the claim of gradualism where the "missing" millions of generations between two morphologically distinct forms is simply absent.

Not only is it absent but there are other fossils present, like I said above, jellyfish, embryos and even tiny organisms that have their tiny stomach contents preserved - but no sign of the necessary millions of generations that would have existed to bridge the "gaps".

There's no way we can explain this, that delicate tiny animals were fossilized but the much larger and complex intermediate forms were not fossilized! So the ridiculous specious argument that "fossilization is rare" is a lie, what is rare is not the fossils but the claimed intermediates, they never existed - that's what the evidence suggests.

There's no way to sugar coat this, the record itself shows an absence of gradualism an absence of the millions of generations that we are all told did once exist, claims about something once existing without any examples of it is not science but faith.