damitall
Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009
|
| Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09) | | Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:42) | | Quote | | Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it. |
Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors?
And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived.
Henry |
It's a valid question.......
Please understand that no one I'm aware of....certainly not me or the circle I hang with....denies evolution.
Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones.
Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.
Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen:
Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring.
If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers. |
Good grief.
He really is that uncomprehendingly stupid.
|
