Punctated Equilibrium says that rapid species change takes place in "hotbed" areas where isolated populations are under pressure to find a new adaptation. For example, the Rift Valley of East Africa was a hotbed of human evolution.
The hotbed of whale evolution, the place where a line of freshwater aquatic mammals lost their land adaptations and went to sea, was long undiscovered. Certainly, it was completely unknown in 1955 when Colbert lamented that whales appear suddenly and stand quite alone.
The hotbed was along the shores of the Tethys Sea, long gone, but whose sediments remain in the high mountains ringing the Indian subcontinent. Until we looked there, Colbert's lament was true.
This is not unusual. Here's a similar case.
In one small locality, there is a 1.25 meter sedimentary layer where these fossils are found. In the narrow (10cm ) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms.Gish cannot plead ignorance. He is clearly aware of research far later than Colbert's lament. He is certainly aware of more modern models of evolution than his "billions of transitional species" claim. He is in fact being patently, cynically dishonest. He isn't arguing to convince the people with the resources not to be fooled. He's trolling for easy marks.In other localities, no transitional forms are found, and the species are not found together. The "sudden" transition in those rocks is explained as migration from the place where the transitional forms occur.
Honest evolutionists admit this is problem. Those that accept evolution on blind faith demand no evidence, regardless of how little common sense or evidence that theory presents. Evolution is your religion, a desperate attempt to deny that there is a God that you are accountable.
And, given the fact you refuse to debate a Creationists, it's pretty obvious that you know just how weak this idiotic theory truly is.
Honest evolutionists admit this is problem. Those that accept evolution on blind faith demand no evidence, regardless of how little common sense or evidence that theory presents. Evolution is your religion, a desperate attempt to deny that there is a God that you are accountable.
And, given the fact you refuse to debate a Creationists, it's pretty obvious that you know just how weak this idiotic theory truly is.
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." ([22], p.19) "Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)
"If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)
There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.
"All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)
"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)
"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
"The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." ([18], p.33-34)
"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)
"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time." ([11], p.57) [11] Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991; [18] Morris, Henry M. Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988;[22] Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.
It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.