Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

[qs As I said originally, all the digs showed a pattern of simple down deep and complicated the further up you got. Now it is true that this is not 100% accurate, as explained by Pink, but it is generally the case./qs]No, this is inaccurate as genetics show. The whole upward concept of evolution, progress, was a social concept interjected into science.[qs Evolution accounts for this pattern./qs]But evolution does not account for the overall pattern, namely we don't see species to species evolution in the fossil record showing groups of species gradually changing into whole new forms. We don't see anything close to it, in fact, and what we do see contradicts evolution, stasis and sudden appearance.

Robin, there is no complete set of fossils showing a transition from reptiles to mammals. That's total horse dung to claim that. It's a gross overstatement just like the Biogenetic law and all of the other myths evos rely on.What evos have are some similarities in the jaw-line, similarities in design, which can just as easily be explained by any number of things, including design and convergent evolution.You were shown to be wholly wrong in your idea that convergent evolution referred only to surface traits, and you are wrong here. In fact, your claim of a complete set of fossils is patently absurd as the fossils are not species to species or even close to it.In fact, I would go as far as to say you have believed a calculated lie, as anyone educated knows there is no complete set of fossils, not even enough to say "there are gaps." You guys claim to have something like .1% of the species involved and then say all that is missing is "gaps." It's absurd.You are also wrong on your other claims to faith. You don't understand adaptive mutations, natural selection and many other areas.