Let's back off from the gaps for a moment and return to your claim that every bit of evidence found to date shows Darwin to be wrong. While I will be the first to agree with scientists that the evolutionary record is not complete, I would also agree with them that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the concept of transition between some species over millions of years. Why would you call them wrong? How does everything listed on that site refute Darwin?
Gaps can be explained by the sheer improbability of a given species being fossilized. Take a walk through the woods some time and list the remains of animals you find. How many deer skeletons do you see? How many bear or beaver or squirrel or bird skeletons do you find? Not many would be my guess. Is it because the the number of animals who die in the woods is remarkably small? Or would a more reasonable explanation for the lack of whole skeletons be the fact that scavengers tend to scatter the remains all over the place? Why should it have been any different millions of years ago? Fossils are rare because the process needed to fossilize them was specific and virtually all that died back then did so under conditions that did not lend themselves to fossilization. Add to that the fact that we're talking of a period of millions of years and gaps are not surprising. But science continues to look and find the answers. Unlike creationists they haven't stopped their search.
Why?
"Why would you call them wrong? How does everything listed on that site refute Darwin?"
I didn't say everything on that site refuted darwin. However, I am curious how they explain the "species could have appeared suddenly".
"Gaps can be explained by the sheer improbability of a given species being fossilized."
Then please explain why most fossils found are "evolutioned". We have many many species, including humans. With that many species, would common sense not dictate there would be many times more "evoluting" fossils found? Where are all the freaky evoluting species? Where the heck are all the inbetweens???
"Fossils are rare because the process needed to fossilize them was specific and virtually all that died back then did so under conditions that did not lend themselves to fossilization."
Then why do we find so many "evolutioned" species and not any "in the process of evolution" species?
"Fossils are rare"
Then why do we have so many of them?
"But science continues to look and find the answers."
Actually, the only thing they're doing is looking and coming up short of answers.... to their own questions that is. They have answered mine....."species could have appeared suddenly,"....which is what I have stated in my 1st post.