And you draw this conclusion because you've studied paleontology and its methods? Hell, you probably know as much about paleontology as you do about math and geometry.
And you draw this conclusion because you've studied paleontology and its methods?
I have seen enough lies from paleontologists to make the above quote. Nebraska man, a total 'ancestor of man' derived from a couple of pig's teeth. Piltdown man, a fake which was kept alive for 40 years till a better substitute for man's ancestry was found. A couple of teeth 10,000 miles away and 20,000,000 years called an ancestor species of a toothless species. Turkey DNA being mistaken for Dinosaur DNA - and the nonsense is still on the web. The first primate, a pair of ankle bones miraculously connected to a lower jaw found ten years before a thousand miles away. Lucy, a supposed human ancestor whose face is a jigsaw puzzle more than 50% plaster.
So yes, I have much evidence that paleontology is utter garbage and to a large extent a lie. But the larger problem with paleontology proving evolution is that it simply cannot prove anything. Paleontology is about dead animals, about partial remains, a bout a few bones here and there. It cannot prove evolution because of the many things it cannot tell us. It is a reductionist practice which allows just about anything to be connected to anything else. It is like a jigsaw puzzle with all square pieces - you can join the pieces any which way you wish.
To see why paleontology cannot prove evolution, look at the species in the article. Could paleontology tell us that euglena had an eye, chloroplasts and was an animal? No. Could paleontology tell us the mode of reproduction of the wasp above? No. Could paleontology tell us that the platypus had mammary glands? No. Could paleontology tell us that the butterfly was reborn? No.
Paleontology misses the most unique, interesting and important features of a species. It does not tell us how they lived, functione or even in most cases how they reproduced. All of these are very important, extremely important to determine descent of one species from another and paleontology cannot provide the evidence for it. Therefore paleontology, what evolutionists stake their whole theory on, cannot prove descent. It can only make false assumptions based on totally insufficient evidence.