How is one supposed to take a theory seriously when it is half-baked that those promoting can't even complete it?
A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.
The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.
Consider...
The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.
Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.
Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.
Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.
Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.
Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.
The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.
And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.
The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.
Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.
The theory is incomprehensible to anyone looking at it objectively. The theory isn't credible enough to be anywhere near being complete, let alone have evidence in the fossil record. In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and supporting the creationist position.
Shouting that for the nth + 1 time doesn't make any more true than the first time. Why do you refuse to discuss the numerous explanations that have been offerred to you in good faith on this thread as to how Evolution does NOT violate the 2LoT?
I see you also forgot to respond to my other question: Have you ever studied Thermodynamics at a collegiate level?
Can you explain how weather systems can spontaneously form and NOT violate the 2LoT the way you and Morris think Evolution does?
Re: Your comments on the Cambrian Explosion. Check out the following Free Republic Thread:
This is what happens when you get your science from (apparently very old) creationist pamphlets. The Cambrian is nowhere near the bottom of the geologic column and contains nowhere near the oldest known fossils.
There's more than you, in particular, ever wanted to know about insect evolution starting here, although you might want to take the lecture from its beginning here.
Yes it has. Pikaia.
Total bull. One of my favorite transitional examples is reptile to mammalian skulls.
The top two are early mammals. The bottom are increasingly old synapsid reptiles. Note the appearance and change in the "synapse," the extra skull hole. Note the wanderings of the rearmost lower jaw bones. They're turning into the mammalian ear bones before your eyes.
This statement was true when Colbert (as quoted by Gish in your earlier cut-and-past) said something similar in 1955. It isn't true now. For you to still be saying this on this thread, with what's been posted to you already on whale transitionals, amounts to a barefaced lie.
Unless you want to plead that you're simply cutting and pasting without reading or understanding and--in the case of this post of yours--without attribution.
I could go on about the nameless and authorless article you pasted into reply 307, but I'll content myself with the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. There are something over 200 there, and those are just the vertebrates. Also, it's seldom up-to-date. There are apparently just too many new ones being found all the time.
Farther on, note the fish-amphibian series. The last slide (34) should be convincing. The earliest true amphibian still has practically the same head as it's lobe-finned fish ancestor.