Replies

"You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins."

The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories. Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved

Rather than search for things that refute that which you don't believe, shouldn't you find proof for the things you do believe?

"The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories.
Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular
species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved"

The saying that sums this up is:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories. Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved

No one is asking for a complete fossil record of all species, no one is asking for a complete fossil record of any particular species. No one is even asking for a complete fossil record at all. What we are asking is for any kind of a record showing the transformation of a species into a more complex one. Not a single such record has been found since the charlatan Darwin first published his theory.

It also must be asked, why the evolutionists set their sights for proving their theory on the fossil record. Darwin knew quite well that the record was very scanty. While he might have hoped that the record would increase by leaps and bounds if people put their mind to it, as it did by some 100 times since he wrote, he knew quite well that it would remain very 'gappy' even then. So why did he stake his theory on fossils? For one very simple reason: it was a gambler's bet, he knew quite well he could not prove evolution with existing species so he had to bet his theory on proof perhaps being found later on. Of course, this is also the kind of bet made by liars of all stripes 'the future will vindicate them' they all say.