Replies

This author provides no scientific proof of evolution simply because very little, if any, exists. Darwin claimed that the greatest proof of his theory would come from the fossil record

As the very first week of any beginning science course emphasizes, scientific theories cannot be "proved": that's not the way it works. They can only be disproved. I have to believe Darwin was aware of this and therefor never made the statement attributed to him.

As far as transitional types are concerned, the record is full of them, including the famous moth which got darker as the air got dirtier.

One additional thought: If the Theory of Evolution eventually proves to be completely and utterly false, that will do nothing to prove the Biblical account. It is the nature of science that theories are shown to be false by better ones. (Sorry this sounds so pompous; I don't know any other way to write it).

The moth that changed color was still a moth. The moths with darker coloration were better able to survive because they were more difficult for predators to see and therefore, there were more of them left to procreate. No new species was established by this selective breeding. Microevolution is not in question here and few doubt its validity. Macroevolution and abiogenesis are the crux of the debate and Darwinism cannot adequately explain either the origins of life or origins of species.

There is no proof or evidence of a new species emerging through natural selection. There are NO transitional species in the fossil record. Even the much celebrated Archaeopteryx is now considered to be a bird and not some transitional species between a reptile and a bird. The fossil record shows statis, the emergence of fully formed species followed by long periods (sometimes millions of years) of little or no change.