Yes, that's a repeat post. Saves linking.But wasn't the evidence valid 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?
Anyway, we have lots of those. We also see things evolving today. It would be hard not to draw the conclusion that some sort of evolution has occurred if one pays attention to the evidence.
Here's another poster's list of transitionals from fish to elephant.
As for dating layers, part of it is done with relative dating principles in use and accepted in the 18th century when all geologists were creationists. Here's my favorite example:
That kind of thing established that we had a geologic column, identified layers, associated layers with flora and fauna, etc.
More recently we have dating techinques that produce numbers. Note that the page has links to further discussion of radiometric dating which you might want to check before you embarrass yourself on the thread.