The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions. What part of that statement do you not understand? In order for the positive transitions to occur there should a overwhelming abundance of negative mutations. Do you disagree with that?
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact". Tell us how the Theory of Evolution is somehow not a scientific theory.Your turn, support your BS assertions. And how many times are you going to make us post this until you admit you were wrong?
Retreating, are you? In Darwin's day, the fossil record was a tiny fraction of what we have now. Darwin was unable to point to that many examples of transitional forms. He nevertheless predicted that various forms interconnecting the tree of life must have existed at one time and are thus liable to be found as fossils. Other forms which make no historical sense (mammal-arthropod, bird-amphibian) should never be found.
Immediately, the scoffers staked out the holes in the fossil record as proof of holes in the history of life itself. That's what you're still doing today. But since 1859, Darwin has been repeatedly vindicated while your ground has shrunk to nothing.
What part of that statement [The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions] do you not understand?
You only just retreated to this position in your last few posts. Rather than trying to make the evidence I've shown you go away, you're pretending it's not enough for you. Where have I failed to understand you? No one will ever bring you enough broomsticks, or the right broomstick. It is the hollowest of mockeries, the most patent of falsehoods, to claim that there is some lack in the physical evidence which prevents you from changing your mind. You have repeatedly shown yourself so ignorant of the state of the evidence that it would be impossible to justify your having a well-formed opinion on evolution at all.
Do you seriously imagine anyone is fooled? Can you even ask yourself how this looks to someone uninvolved following this conversation, if such an easily-amused person there be?
Now, at any rate, you're reduced to claiming that you know better than evolutionists what the implications of the theory of evolution actually are. As I mentioned, Darwin indeed wondered aloud where the transitionals are and predicted that they would turn up. I believe I have also mentioned now that they have done so in impressive numbers.
It is creation science, not real science, to stay stuck in the late 19th century for the sake of tactical convenience in arguing before an audience of presumed suckers.
Didn't mean to skip this part of your post. However, one more verb should.
Since in your thrashing you're moving away from previous mantras, the broader picture of evidence for macroevolution goes far beyond fossil transitionals.