Replies

three frames

Well, at least you get the point, even if you think the entire set of evolutionary fossil evidence consists of three specimens.

You really think many people are going to believe that?

I've got this bridge .......

---
Well, at least you get the point, even if you think the entire set of evolutionary fossil evidence consists of three specimens.

You really think many people are going to believe that?
---

The point is that the fossil record does not demonstrate the granularity your analogy calls for. To use some physics terminology, the quanta represented in the fossil record is too large to support the speciation declared by evoultion.

Evolution is currently divided into two camps: gradual change and punctuated equilibrium. The fossil record does not support gradual change; the fossils are too discrete. This is why punctuated equilibrium was proposed in the first place. However, punctuated equilibrium has even more serious problems (a satisfactory mechanism to accomplish it).

There are other problems as well. The effects of genetic drag from negative mutations predict that evolution of the current biosphere would take 40 to 400 billion years.

If evolution is a constant gradual process, we should be able to observe various speciations occurring by taking a statistical sampling of the current biosphere.

Irreducibly complex systems cannot be explained by gradual minute changes in an organism, and several biological systems for which we have developed a very good understanding (human blood clotting for example) appear to be irreducibly complex.

Evolution cannot explain the origins of life and therefore is, at best, an incomplete theory.

I'm not a creationist in the sense that is normally attacked on these threads, but I am extremely discouraged by the evolutionary community refusing to even acknowledge that these obvious problems with the theory exist. That's an indication of a dogma at work, not a science.