ROFL!!! PatrickHenry proved that your claim was actually DEAD WRONG about what Darwin said on the subject (he actually aid the OPPOSITE of what you claimed), and what's your response? Did you admit error like an honorable person? Heck no, you just flung back an OUT OF CONTEXT quote and hoped it would fool anyone (hint: Darwin said that, *then* went on to correctly explain why such forms would be relatively rare in the fossil record). Oh well, that's typical of anti-evolutionists, at least, "quote-mining" is one of their favorite disingenuous tools. Or maybe they do it because they're not able to understand more than a sentence or two at a time, and don't actually grasp the full discussion. Perhaps you could elucidate for us which one explains your own example...
Please understand that I am not attempting to characterize all people who ascribe to this theory in a particular manner, nor am I saying that the theory was fabricated from whole cloth. I am simply applying the principle "plurality should not be posited without necessity" in light of what we know today concerning the distinctness of DNA, the spontaneous appearance (and disappearance) of species and the nature of consiousness, non-locality, subjectivity of time and the non-substantial nature of matter. (Please refer to post #149.) The best to you in all things capitalist and the ongoing search for truth.
Ah, yes, the old "if I post some mumbo-jumbo, maybe it'll distract attention from how I got caught posting falsehoods" ploy. If that was your hope, I regret to inform you that it didn't work.
Getting back to the subject, please explain how you came to post a complete falsehood about Darwin. Did you know you were lying, or were you just repeating the falsehoods of other anti-evolutionists without the knowledge or ability to notice how dishonest it was?
This is not done--MUST not be done--by Holy Warriors striving publicly with an Evil, Dumb Enemy.