What does this disingenuous protest mean?
We didn't used to know much about the history of whales. Duane Gish was still in 1994 quoting some guy named Colbert as follows:
Speaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."You have to follow a footnote pointer to get to the following:
[3] E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1955, p. 303.Do you see the problem? In the same article, Gish tries to undermine all the new whale finds from the Tethys Sea sediments in Pakistan and India. (Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, etc.) It's clearly dishonest, but never mind that.
The gradual transition happened. Nothing sprang from nothing. We just didn't have the evidence for many decades. You have to look in the right place, assuming it even fossilized.
You're simply lawyering on the lack of evidence. Don't forget to change your tune if it turns up; you wouldn't want to look like Gish.
No, I'm simply asking you to substantiate a claim that you made (i.e. that there was no evidence of big leaps in design introductions).
I even attempted to give you an example (duck-billed platipus) of such a design leap to aid in your explanation, but you seem determined to avoid substantiating your claim at all costs.