Summations Only

So you show some pictures of some fossils and you think that proves anything?The fossil record should, if evolution is correct, show us each transitional species that lead on to the next. Where are they?There are several different forms, but nothing in between.The fossil record does not support evolution, please show me all the thousands, if not millions, of transitional species that go in between those few fossils you showed. Maybe then you'll actually have a leg to stand on.As it is, the fossil record discovered since Darwin shows stasis and saltation. He told us to relinquish his theory if no transitional species were found, why don't you take his advice?Regards, aristotle

Well now that is interesting! Thank you for sharing.However, as you so astutely pointed out to me in another thread: how much change does an organism require to become an entire new species.According to that fossil record, no new species were created, it was just the same species varying slightly.And please link me to the 'hundreds' of supposed speciations the guy has witnessed, as I know for a fact that no mutation has ever been witnessed adding information to a genome.Regards, aristotleEdited by aristotle, : No reason given.Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

If they're Darwinian-evolutionists then they don't know much about species, as he couldn't even define the term.If they don't even know exactly what a species is, how can they tell when there are different ones?That link gives hardly any information about the differences between the supposed species, in the picture of all the varying ones, the all look pretty much the same.And any changes that did appear in those single-cell organisms cannot be compared to higher animals, which are far more complex.