Replies

Here's an example of the problem you are dodging. I mentioned this earlier, but didn't want to go look for it.

The transition from fish to elephant in small steps with known fossils.

Against that, you just keep saying "There aren't any," and "No bones you can find mean anything."

And here's where I bop you on the head for claiming falsely that something scientists expect to find in the fossil record is in fact missing when two things are true:

Science thinks we have about the fossil record we should expect, given how evolution works and how geology works.
Nothing will ever be a transitional form for you, no matter what science acutally does find. You are categorically dismissing all fossil evidence.

It is a dishonest game to pretend that you would accept fossil evidence were it not missing if you would not do so and are already rejecting what you claim is missing.

Unusual fossils do turn up from time to time, but they are obviously fully functional animals and not in a state of evolution.

Populations evolve by staying fit, not by going unfit. You don't have a clue what the theory of evolution says.

Think about that. You don't have even the most elementary understanding of what you are claiming is wrong. How do you know it's wrong if you don't know what it is?

"Against that, you just keep saying "There aren't any," and "No bones you can find mean anything."

That transition from fish to elephants commentary is a joke, and doesn't at all prove that transitionals exist. All of those could be modern animals, extinct animals, or a subspecies of modern animals that no longer exist (like different breeds of dogs) and you can't prove this is not the case. It fits perfectly within the model that animals were 'created' fully formed. Some evolutionist lament the fact that the fossil record does not support the gradual evolution that you describe, and have proposed a different theory. This theory has been known as 'punctuated equilibrium'. The supporters of this theory point towards the fossil record where they find abrupt appearance of new species or an abrupt disappearance of an existing species, as well as a large number of transitionals that should be present but are not.

"Populations evolve by staying fit, not by going unfit. You don't have a clue what the theory of evolution says."

You must not know what fully functional means. If you are going to have humans with complex organ systems evolve gradually from slime you are going to have to have features in intermediates that are not fully formed (limbs, eyes, brain, etc.,), which by the way is another reason why gradual evolution is ridiculous. This is just common sense, and totally unsupported by the fossil record as some of your punctuationalist brethren will tell you. Rapid evolution, however, has it's own set of problems. At least you admit evolution is a theory and not fact. Whatever your particular view is, genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, etc. do not explain how a single cell can evolve into a human. To claim so is just plain dishonesty.

I noticed you again conveniently avoided (dodged) the abiogenesis problem again, just like most evolutionist. You can't have evolution until you have life. Even some evolutionist acknowledge this huge problem and believe in a supernatural event that created life.