Evolutionary theory faces two insurmountable problems.
1) If species evolved by micromutation then the fossil record would be full of transitional forms. There would be nothing else. In fact, there are no examples of fossil forms that are not fully functional, integrated organisms. Species always appear fully formed in the fossil record and disappear the same way.
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
Unless one adheres to the "punctuated evolution" variation, I would ask, "Where are today's 'transitionals?'"
I look around and I don't see the continuum of species variations existent. You would expect this in a system that has been "maturing" for billions of years. Instead, I see species reproducing after their own kind. The genetically flawed are compost.
Punctuated evolution is just another in a series of twists that try to explain away the obvious and maintain a belief in a fundamentally flawed theory.
Yepp, because as the law of fossilization says: Every population should leave a well preserved fossil every 126 years.
Oh no, wait! There isn't such a law.
1) If species evolved by micromutation then the fossil record would be full of transitional forms. There would be nothing else. In fact, there are no examples of fossil forms that are not fully functional, integrated organisms. Species always appear fully formed in the fossil record and disappear the same way.This page is down just now, but give it a look when it comes up. It has nice examples of smooth change in the fossil record.
Most of the best examples are from deep sea sediments. Why? Some of those surfaces have not suffered a single period of erosion in millions of years.
By comparison, the sharp and skinny layers of sediment that line the road cuts in the mountains where I live represent periods of deposition. In between are periods of no deposition, and often erosion. So the scenario is that a lot of sediment is laid down. The ground shifts and some is washed off. The ground shifts again (tectonic forces on the march) and deposition resumes. But now it's a different environment containing different species.
Are you familiar with what punctuated equilibrium itself says, and not what Duane Gish and/or medved say about it? The essence is that big changes happen not only in a time, but in a place, and radiate out from there. Dig in the right place and you will find those elusive transitionals. Until then, you see only a "sudden replacement."
We have many instances of this from the fossil record now. We know that it's basically the model that applies. Just for instance, we had no fossil record of really early man until we looked in East Africa. That's where it happened. We had no fossil record of really early whales until we looked in the Pamir/Himalayan Tethys Sea sediments. That's where it happened.
What you see from creationists about punk-eek is basically lawyering based upon strawman mischaracterizations. The irony is that you know they read Stephen J. Gould. They've mined every argument he ever had with scientists of a more gradualist bent for snippets to "prove" there are no transitionals.
Now I know you're getting the Duane Gish version. "One day a lizard gave birth to a bird. But where was another bird for that one to mate with?"
The whole population drifts along together. At any given time, all the males are compatible with all the females, outside a few bad matches.
Also, the change is more gradualistic even with punk-eek than what Duane told you. For instance, Note that there was many a step from dino to bird.
It is full of transitional fossils. Heck, every animal that ever lived is a transitional form. You are a transitional form if the human race doesn't suddenly become extinct. Even transitional fossils will be fully functional, integrated organisms because they were well adapted for the environment they found themselves in. Their daughter species adapted to the environment as it changed or they ceased to exist. It's not like one day area X was tropical and the next day it was arctic, or that sea levels rose or fell dozens of feet overnight -- even the "abrupt" changes in the environment are only abrupt on a geological scale and actually take dozens of generations, allowing plenty of time for species to adapt or not. Below are several links on such things as "macroevolution," speciation and transitional fossils (hint: they do exist).
Macroevolution, Speciation and Transitional Species
29 Evidences for Macroevolution, Thread The Next (2001-04-02)
African Elephants Are Now One of Two Kinds [Elephant Evolution] (2001-08-24)
All About Archaeopteryx {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, January 15, 1999}
Archaeopteryx FAQs, The {Chris Nedin, Talk Origins, 1995-1997}
Archaeopteryx's Relationship With Modern Birds {Thomas Holtz, Jr., 1995}
Biologists Uncover Darwin's ‘Missing Evidence’ for Divergence of Species in a Warbler's Song (2001-01-19)
DNA and Darwin: Research Shows that Evolution Repeats Itself in Caribbean Lizards (2001-04-07)
Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) (2001-07-09)
Macroevolution {John Wilkins, Talk Origins, 1997}
Macro-Evolution versus Moses (Several Parts) (1999-12-14)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part II] (2000-04-02)
Magic of Evolutionary Speciation, The [Part III] (2000-04-11)
Observed Instances of Speciation {Joseph Boxhorn, Talk Origins, September 1, 1995}
Process of Speciation, The {University of Michigan, 1996}
Speciation {Kimball's Biology Pages, December 1, 2001}
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium {Don Lindsay}
Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists (2000-05-18)
Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change (2002-02-07)
Ted Holden's "Intermediate Fossil" Quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message" {Andrew MacRae}
Transitional Fossils -- Age and Descent {Wesley R. Elsberry}
Transitional Fossils Leading to Orbulina {April 26, 1998}
Transitional Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt}
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ {Kathleen Hunt, Talk Origins, March 17, 1997}
Water Lily Study Sheds Light on Evolution of Flowering Plants {Scientific American}
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
No it doesn't require mutations in two individuals. The speciation in punctuated equilibrium does not happen overnight. It still takes dozens of generations during which beneficial genes spread throughout a population. It only looks like it happens abruptly on a GEOLOGICAL SCALE.
Where have you picked up such strange ideas in regards to evolution? It wasn't out of any text book or scientific treatise on the subject, unless you simply misunderstood what was being presented. Hell, my last biology class was as a college sophomore 17 years ago, and I understand the basics of the theory.
The fossil record is indeed full of transitionals-- previous posts have linked to threads showing the transitional fossils between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between ruminants and whales, between primates and humans, and on and on. Of course, each fossil is a "fully functional, integrated organism"; that's exactly what evolution predicts. It has to be to stay alive and pass on its genes to the next generation. It just is a fully functional, integrated organism that happens to have, in the case of transitional whales, both hip bones and flippers.
2) The only other materialistic explanation for the development of new species is punctuated equilibria, which requires spectacular, massive, beneficial mutations simultaneously in two creatures, one male and one female. Both creatures must then find each other and mate. This ludicrous impossibility must happen many times within a "species" and then innumerable times in history to create all existing species. The theory is simply laughable.
Punctuated equilibrium requires no such thing. Punk-eek speaks of evolution as happening relatively quickly, in geologic time-- e.g., over tens of thousands of years rather than the hundreds of thousands predicted by classical darwinism-- not all in one generation. And a mutation doesn't have to occur in both a male and a female; if one of them has it, half their offspring will have it, and if it confers a reproductive advantage, more of the next generation will have it, and so on.