I was told the Darwin story by a friend who must have gotten bad information but it really doesn't matter. The true transitional fossils showing one life form slowly turning into another simply don't exist. The fossils you guys present as that don't clearly show the slow transitions that evolution calls for. I think that is pretty obvious; if it were not this debate would have been over long ago. There are so many good scientists too, that see the falicy of toe some of which have been posted. Anyways, you guys are compelled to try and make some fossils fit into the TOE for some strange reason. I hope you will have more of an open mind.
So, using the reptile-to-mammal as an example, what else should there be? What would the predictions of creationism and ID be? (keeping in mind that Dempbski and Behe accept common descent)
The debate ended about 120 years ago as far as biologists are concerned.
There are so many good scientists too, that see the falicy of toe some of which have been posted.
Maybe, being generous, a few hundred, almost none of whom are biologists. Something like 99.7% of biologists consider evolution a done deal. Read the Paleos website. Just kidding; it's too huge. Instead, start with the vertebrates and follow any lineage you like; there are lots of intermediate/transitional forms.
Anyways, you guys are compelled to try and make some fossils fit into the TOE for some strange reason. I hope you will have more of an open mind.
Remember that the fact of evolution (then known as the Law of Faunal Succession) was known decades before Darwin and Wallace came up with the theory of evolution by natural (and sexual) selection; Lamarck and Buffon, among others, had earlier theories to explain the fossil facts.
Modern genetic data have strengthened the case for common descent.
The term is Creationism