Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact".Or just admit you were wrong.
And as for this raving from a lunatic: The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions.
Show me a 200 million year old fossil of an extant mammal species. What? You can't? I guess they were all transitionals after all.
Come on, we're all waiting. Tell us about any "scientific theory" that has been magically transformed into a "scientific fact".
Or just admit you were wrong.
And as for this raving from a lunatic: The fossil record should be almost nothing but transitions.
Show me a 200 million year old fossil of an extant mammal species. What? You can't? I guess they were all transitionals after all.
Balrog,
If you think that you somehow sound like a sane, refined, cultured, educated, intellectual, I think you might want to try a Dale Carnegie course. You are just babbling. For example an extant mammal would not be a transitional species but instead it would be negative mutation. Why because it failed to survive. On the other hand it may just be a extant mammal.
Your insults about myself and my education only prove that you are in fact a person of lowly stature. Who else would try to make an assertion without any evidence or knowledge? Well I guess that is why evolution appeals to you so much.
Sympathetic Regards,
Boiler Plate
There are none, because there were no mammals 200 million years ago. In fact we cannot tell if there were any mammals a million years ago. There are no fossils with mammary glands in the first place. In the second place there is absolutely nothing to show the gradual evolution of mammals. It is your side that has no proof and yes the absence of proof is proof of lack, a tremendous lack of facts supporting evolution.