It's the fact that we have many many fossils today (certainly more now than in Darwin's day), and yet so called "transitional fossils" still remain a rarity that hurts evolution. Plus the lack of living animals where we should see some sort of transitional form, but don't.
Darwin's argument had almost entirely to do with observations about intraspecies variation and the fact that very similar species tended to cluster together geographically. Give that "intelligent design" was the prevailing
scientific theory in his time, scientists found it hard to explain why species tended to cluster together in that way. Presumably, God need not have left such skewed patterns of plant and animal populations around the planet. Darwin himself never understood the mechanism by which intraspecies variation led to speciation, and that was considered a major weakness in his theory. The fossil record was suggestive, but not as conclusive as it is in modern times. Hence, his theory, for all its elegance, met with widespread skepticism during his lifetime, and he felt pressured to soften some of his original claims late in life.
The idea that there are few "transitional fossils" in the modern record is completely false, and geologist Donald Prothero (New Scientist, Feb. 2008) has aptly called this deceptive claim the creationists' "favorite lie". Extensive lists of such fossils have been compiled (e.g.
the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils List, which was published at talkorigins over 10 years ago. As for living animals, every single species in existence is an example of a transitional form. Evolution never stops.
By now, though, what we find between the gaps is enough to prove what Darwin's theory predicted we would find.
Showing that it was assumed what it was looking to prove. And as I said before the ones evolutionist constantly name as 'evidence' always turn out to be the same handful of disputable ones. They have to be interpreted as transitional, by those who believe transitional fossils exsist.
Again, you repeat the "favourite lie". The OP is a case in point. It cannot be among the "handful of disputable ones", since it was just recently discovered. But the record is full of such examples, as the talkorigins FAQ and other sources make very clear. There is no feeling at all among scientists that the record of transitional fossils is somehow small and impoverished.
What we do not find is fossil evidence of miraculous spontaneous generations that had no connection to any of the major phyla, nor do find find evidence to contradict the timelines that scientists have established for evolution. For example, no human fossils are found in strata with dinosaur fossils, which indicates that hominids/humans have only relatively recently appeared on Earth.[/quote}
Hehehe. You sight the rarity of fossilization to show why a lack of transitional fossils is not surprising...
False. I never said that there was a lack of transitional fossils, only that there were gaps in the fossil record.
...yet want to ignore it in this case, especially given that in a pre-Flood era human population wouldn't be very high, and as we've seen from various tsunami's where water and other factors can simply leave no trace of a body. Of course this doesn't even go into the fact that not finding two fossils together merely means they weren't buried together. There are some 'living fossils' that evolutionist believe exsisted along side dinosaurs, yet we don't find fossils of humans along side them even though we live together today.
There is no geologic evidence for the biblical flood, although there is evidence of great floods that would have given rise to the flood myth in ancient times. As for your "living fossils" claim, suggest at least one concrete example of what you are talking about. The fossil record shows the ubiquitous presence of hominids long before modern humans came to appear, and not even hominid fossil remains are found in strata with dinosaurs.
And as far as timeline and spontaneous generations goes, now I know you haven't looked into the issue enough, since fossils are constantly shifted to try and make the evolutionary timeline fit. And the Cambrian Explosion is tacit admission of animal phyla appearing abruptly with no known transitional forms preceding them. Instead of gradual divirgence, the fossil record constantly shows the differences being abrupt at the beginning.
The so-called "Cambrian explosion" took place over an immense period of time, and there are reasonable explanations for why the fossil record from that era is even spottier than the record from more recent strata. What you call "abrupt" actually took place over a period that is almost impossible for humans to conceive of--roughly 70-80 million years. The metaphor "explosion" misleads people into thinking that it referred to a sudden event, but the "suddenness" is only relative to other periods where there was more stability in the biosphere.
The reality is that science dotes on skepticism and debates. They aren't earning their salaries if their only activity is to suppress controversy and cover up the truth. That type of behavior should be left for those who try to rationalize preposterous religious claims. 
How perfectly you describe evolutionists, as evolution is indeed a philosophy and we do indeed have evidence of them suppressing controversy: http://sntjohnny.com/front/fired-for-advocating-intelligent-design-the-evolutionary-inquisition-continues-orthodox-science-not-to-be-questioned/209.html
Nonsense. Scientists do not publish papers that attempt to refute unproven crackpot ideas. Intelligent design had its scientific airing in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it is no longer a serious contender. The reason that it no longer merits publication is that it makes no verifiable predictions. In the 19th century, its defenders came up with every imagineable excuse to try to save it in the face of Darwin's much more compelling argument.
BTW, Darwin didn't have much of a fossil record to work with. The fact that so much has been discovered since his time, including the science of genetics and the discovery of DNA, is considered supportive of the theory. The strength of science is not in what it tells us about what we have discovered so much as what it tells us about what we will discover.
I know. And it's the fact that had Darwin known how complex cells were (in his day he believed most of it useless junk), how much DNA speaks to ID, and how the evidence constantly points to a steady fall downwards of genetic info. he would have hung his head in defeat. The more we discover the less likely evolution becomes (as constant and often contradictory explanations have to be given to maintain it), as opposed to those who readily embrassed it back in Darwin's day had so little info to go on. Not that it stopped them from promoting it as fact.
You are woefully ignorant of the history of how evolutionism came to be the dominant scientific theory. Darwin's theory was criticized most strongly precisely because he did not understand the mechanism behind intraspecies variation, although he knew that there was something there. He did not recognize the work in genetics that later came to put the nail in the coffin for the argument from design. Once that mechanism was understood, scientists had little more reason to cling to theological naturalism. The discovery of DNA in the 20th century was only another nail in what was already firmly sealed scientific consensus. We now have so much evidence from so many different sources of information to confirm evolution, that the few scientists funded by creationists (e.g. those in the Discovery Institute) are basically limited to debates with philosophers and lectures to the faithful.
Author
Topic: Ancient snake with legs (Read 6752 times)