Yes, it does. Again, the fossil record is literally overflowing with transitional fossils.
Gould described the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record "the trade secret of paleontology"
Paleontologists seem to think it is their duty to protect the rest of us from the erroneous conclusions we may draw should we see for ourselves the actual state of the evidence.
As for Eldridge -he wrote
"Each new generation produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have looked for have of course been of the gradual progressive sort.More often than not, their efforts have gone unrewarded -their fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist relatively unchanged....Studies documenting conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures, and more often than not weren't even published....gaps in the record continue to be invoked as the prime reason so few cases of gradual change are found."
'Punctuated equilibrium' accomplishes a great deal for evolutionists by making the process of change inherently invisible.
I could give you so many more quotes from true believers (including Eldredge and Gould who remained evolutionists despite the lack of evidence)but this is enough to show that this story of vast numbers of transtitionals is an enormous exaggeration or why would they have said these things? Apart from that no fossil could possibly be used to prove ancestor descendant relationships in principle -they are dead and buried -things that existed in the past and no longer do.
Facts are based on direct observations not on hypotheses in theories.While some explanations may appear plausible especially to a philisophical materialist, it may nonetheless be false.
By this logic, we should open up the prisons and let everyone out. Most crimes take place without witnesses and yet somehow we manage to determine who did it and how and when.
Well I'd venture to say we have a lot more in the way of eyewitness reports and evidence on crime scenes than we do for bacteria changing into bacteriologists. Written history can be very useful for reconstructing the past too but without any witnesses nor any historical reports, we really remain whistling in the dark.
Yes. How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate any more? We've seen pretty much every mutation imaginable down to complete duplication of the entire chromosomal record. We have seen point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplications, transpositions, frame shifts, you name it. What would stop it?
Well what if the original information is coded into the organism along with the ability to adapt by various means to alterations in environment. Just because we can document changes in that original genetic code does not mean to say that a worm genome can code for any other organism now or ever. We have no proof that the barrier between worm and the next hypothesised link can be bridged by way of random variations in an original programme that codes for a worm. Since we don't have that sort of proof, we should not consider it self evident that it can happen until such time as it is proven to be possible.
What if living things really are designed? Someone who discovers a watch on the ground and decides to investigate its origins, would be foolish to rule out design from the outset. He may then waste the rest of his life trying to figure out how the watch made itself.
Why are evolutionists so intent on ruling out design? If they must rule out design a priori, then something like evolution just has to be true before any of the evidence even comes in. That's called a philisophical choice not science since for science one needs experimental evidence. At least science is supposed to work that way.Maybe science has been hijacked by storytellers?
You say I must prove that there's a barrier to variation but that's not how it works. If you say that butter turns to ginger beer when you add caustic soda -do you declare it to be fact until such time as I prove that it is not true? The same with fossils - declare truth on evidence, not on extrapolation and supposition.There are still 2 choices -we were designed OR we evolved from non-living chemicals by random mutation and pure chance over a very long time.
Why should I prove that you're wrong. You prove to me that you're right before you declare what is truth and what is not.At least let's show that the train's moving in the right direction to produce all this prodigious change that you believe was possible.
We have presented the evidence to you over and over again here. The fact that you deny it doesn't change the fact that it exists.
Rhain Rhain go away, you have presented not evidence but supposition and theory. But you're right that denial doesn't change the facts of what actually happened.If you had presented anything convincing enough I would have gone away by now. So I'm not in denial just waiting for the magic bullet that clears the supposed mists from my eyes.
You mean the fossils don't exist? The jaws that I have handled with my own hands were just frauds?
They may exist but you filled in the missing parts with your imagination and your philisophical beliefs.
Thus, all you wind up with over the generations are neutral and beneficial mutations.
So where is the human race's genetic load coming from if that were true?
You mean the fossils don't really exist? They're really scattered across the strata rather than being in chronological order?
How can we know that chronology has anything to do with it? What looks like millions of years of sedimentation happened in one afternoon at Mt St Helens. Very old dates are acquired from rocks known to be under 30 years old. How do we know that these very old dates have anything to do with the truth considering all these things?
Duplication followed by mutation. Is that or is that no "information building"?
No, it is very possibly only variation in original coded information.Go back to the beginning - where did the original information come from?
™ Version 4.2