|
The main problem that most arguements against evolution come up against is that they find one or two holes in the theory, and take that as the end of the story.
Routinely, they'll point to something and say "Evolution can't explain this" or "no one knows why this happens". The problem is that if they noticed the pace of scientific exploration, it's probably pretty likely that some scientist is working on that exact problem as we speak, or someone will be doing so in very short order. To put God in the shadows of evolution is far more dangerous to God than to evolution, for when that "hole" is explained, God is chased to some other misty recess...
As for that fossil site. The claim of no "transitional" fossils is BS. There are plenty of fossils and species that show movement from one species to another. I long ago sold back my Evolution Text book from my Ecology and Evolution class (required as part of my Bio minor, no less), but it had 7-10 different examples of "transitional" species, including the species that gave way to whales but had functional legs.
To say that there must be millions of "transitional" fossils is absurd too. If you think about all the billions and billions of animals that have lived on earth throughout history, compared to the number of fossils that have been discovered, it's easy to see that fossilization is a pretty rare occurance. To demand that multiple fossils of transitional species be presented is simply trying to disprove the theory on the basis of numbers...rather than on actual science.
I could go on about all this but it's making me mad and I need to study.
|