"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.
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. Again, you're following a simple outline.
- Step One: Declare that fossil evidence is missing and scientists are looking all over for it. If unchallenged on that, you win. If you get challenged with fossil evidence, go to Step Two.
- Step Two: Make sweeping dismissals of fossil evidence by saying something like ...
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.
The fish-to-elephant demonstration is exactly the kind of progression-in-small-steps evidence which you are making a big show of demanding (because it supposedly doesn't exist) and at the same time throwing out (because it does in fact exist).
Before you make another brainless repetition of the same claims, answer two questions.
1. What is the "legitimate" thing which is missing? (After all, you want to score points for this evidence being missing. What is this real thing which you would need to see?)
2. How does the evidence already presented in any way differ from the real thing you claim to be missing? (Most scientists think it's the real thing. If they're wrong, where did they go wrong?)
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'.
Since you don't know what evolution is, it can be no shock that you don't know what punctuated equilibrium is. It is still a gradual, Darwinian evolution. All you know about what you are saying is wrong you have obtained from creationist websites (or books or pamphlets). Absolutely every word is a lie.
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.
All of the intermediate stages are beneficial. The real theory does not involve somehow lucking through long periods of unfitness. You got lied to, that's all. You don't know the real thing.
I noticed you again conveniently avoided (dodged) the abiogenesis problem again, just like most evolutionist. You can't have evolution until you have life.
Try articulating something specific. Classical evolution has never addressed abiogenesis.