"But when one is looking for an excuse to dismiss evolution, even a tiny gap or "missing link" looks good.
Not so long ago I tried to perform the calculations needed to determine the probability of a specific fossil being found . About 15 minutes into it the variables became so numerous that I simply gave it up. I wish a few creationists would try that calculation so they could see how difficult it can be to find fossils for specific lineages and how remarkable it is we have as many as we do.
But when one is looking for an excuse to dismiss evolution, even a tiny gap or "missing link" looks good.
===========
Not so long ago I tried to perform the calculations needed to determine the probability of a specific fossil being found. About 15 minutes into it the variables became so numerous that I simply gave it up. I wish a few creationists would try that calculation so they could see how difficult it can be to find fossils for specific lineages and how remarkable it is we have as many as we do.
You could probably prove mathematically that no fossils would ever be found!
Contradicted by the facts of course, but facts seem to be in short supply on the other side.
I particularly like to ask the young earth types about the radiocarbon dating of bristlecone pines, extending the calibration curve back (using tree-ring dating) some 10,000 years. Funny, I have never received an answer.
Oh, that's not entirely correct. One on our side (unfortunately I don't remember who right now) pointed out (correctly) that other methods extended the calibration curve back some 20,000 years.
But if WE point out that all of the 'little changes' neccessary for Evolution to have actually occured in the amount of time postulated is likewise unimagineable, we get dismissed.
Strange....