I guess not.
It doesn't change the FACT that NO fossel record exists that even remotely suggests evolution.
"It doesn't change the FACT that NO fossel record exists that even remotely suggests evolution."
Right, keep telling yourself that.
On the other hand, we could recall Piltdown man. Although creationists love to somehow offer this fraud as evidence against evolution, the truth is that real scientists realised that something was amiss when they tried to reconcile it with later fossils. And what do you know? It turned out to be a fraud.
There’s a test of evolution for you right there, and it would have been pretty difficult to carry out if it was a “FACT that NO fossel record exists that even remotely suggests evolution”.
ml1954 is basically saying that you have no understanding of science, biology or evolution and what you are posting has nothing to do with archeology or biology. I agree with him. Your statements clearly show you have never studied the subject and are making gross errors in your statements. Stating those errors demonstrates that you do not have the knowledge to discuss evolution since you do not even know what it means. If you, or anyone else, wants to argue about evolution, you have to learn what scientists mean by evolution.
"fossel"
Just a suggestion: You may find that people take your arguments more seriously if you spell the word correctly. The first time, I took it as a typo. The second time you misspelled it, I realized that you did not know how to spell the word properly.
It's FOSSIL.
fossel PM