Did you read reply #663? There's nothing from you among the replies to it.
* Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
"Precursors" is interpretive, unwarrantedly conclusionary and not science. Given the lies that have been propounded by the Evolutionists for over a century, I am simply not willing to accept this statement as fact. And the essence of this small critique can be applied to the whole post. Anyone can become acquainted with the multitude of forms, find the similarities and their approximate timeframes, and "interpolate" to find "missing" forms. Is this science? Well, I suppose in some small way that it is. But it says nothing about how it all occurred.
I have and do freely acknowledge that living forms are related in significant ways, for the unteenth time, but the Evolutionists have failed utterly to show how, specifically, they relate and that one form "evolved" into another. The lab and fossil evidence is that (currently indentified) 300,000+ species stubbornly reproduce true-to-form over very long periods of time and that mutations are destructive. We are left with rhetoric.