Then why are people posting fossil sequences and purporting to prove evolution? By your own admission it's uncertain and inexact.
It still means something if you find a fossil series that morphs like movie frames, even if one frame is seemingly out of order. You consistently decline to explain why such a thing exists at all if it doesn't mean what most scientists think it does
I can come up with a lot of reasons. I would say that they're similiar creatures that lived about the same time. Or they're similiar creatures that lived at different times. Throw out your belief in transistional fossils and all that it implies and how would you prove me wrong? It should be easy, shouldn't it?
Because many people are less clue-resistant than yourself and the display you are making will not convince anyone who gets it better than you do.
I can come up with a lot of reasons. I would say that they're similiar creatures that lived about the same time. Or they're similiar creatures that lived at different times.
Your Nobel awaits you, Einstein.
I will here repost the standard form of the "No transitional forms" dialogue.
But wasn't all that evidence relevant when it was supposedly missing?
- Tap-Dancing Science-Denier declares that the fossil record lacks instances of things changing in an orderly series from some Thing A to Thing Z. As this kind of evidence is to be expected, the lack of it must weigh against evolution having happened. By the very statement of this objection we are invited to believe the Tap-Dancing Science-Denier would accept such evidence IF ONLY IT EXISTED but the thing is it doesn't exist.
- Someone who disagrees demonstrates many instances well known in the literature of fossil series intermediate in form and time between some Thing A and some Thing Z.
- The Tap-Dancer then declares fossil series evidence to be irrelevant. How do we know ... various things? The dates of the fossils? Whether fossil A lies exactly on the ancestral line of fossil B?