Replies

Evolution of plankton into plankton doesn't do much for me -- and evolution of horses into horses or whales into whales doesn't do much for the the argument about the "origin of species" -- not just because of the "gaps" that you admit exist, but, more importantly, because Darwin argued that species developed by chance through trial and error, with the less capable versions of the predecessor species simply becoming extinct through "survival of the fittest." Now, logic would suggest that this process would create infinitely more examples of the losers than of the winners in this game of random chance evolution -- but, alas, there is no record of that infinite numbers of less capable iterations anywhere. Very strange.

But, the big problem, of course, is the Cambrian Period, where over just a few million years, countless new species appeared on earth with no record at all of anything preceding them from which they could have "evolved." There is a huge fossil record of the periods before the Cambrian, but no evidence of any of the expected predecessor species. All these species just seem to have appeared spontaneously.

Evolution of plankton into plankton doesn't do much for me

Different species of plankton - ie a species to species transition, which is what you asked for.

and evolution of horses into horses or whales into whales doesn't do much for the the argument about the "origin of species"

Again they are different species of horse and different species of whale which imply species to species evolution (ie macroevolution).

because Darwin argued that species developed by chance through trial and error, with the less capable versions of the predecessor species simply becoming extinct through "survival of the fittest." Now, logic would suggest that this process would create infinitely more examples of the losers than of the winners in this game of random chance evolution -- but, alas, there is no record of that infinite numbers of less capable iterations anywhere. Very strange.

The losers tend to die before they can reproduce, wheras the winners reproduce so making more copies of themselves. Therefore over time there will be more winners than losers represented in the fossil record. Also losers would tend to be indistinguishable from the winners in the fossil record.

But, the big problem, of course, is the Cambrian Period, where over just a few million years, countless new species appeared on earth with no record at all of anything preceding them from which they could have "evolved."

The vast majority of species on earth appeared long after the cambrian. All species of plants, trees, mammals, reptiles, jawed fish, birds, insects for example, of which there is plenty of evidence of evolution over the time of their existance. So I find the appearance of small aquatic, and relatively simple creatures in the cambrian over a few millions of years to be sometimes over-exagerated as a problem for the theory.

the big problem, of course, is the Cambrian Period, where over just a few million years, countless new species appeared on earth with no record at all of anything preceding them from which they could have "evolved."

Sir, this a conservative forum. Please don't come here and insult our intelligence with pseudo science garbage you've obviously copied from one of those absurd charlatan anti-evolution websites. If you're going to inject yourself into a science debate, please at least read a real science book before pretending that you know anything about the subject.