No, the problem is not that there are randomly assorted gaps which is what would be expected if there was just a lack of fossils, it is that they are systematically at the places where the biggest morphological changes would be taking place, such as genera and phyla.
There are many transitional forms in the fossil record. Anyone who knows how to use a search engine, or go to a library or a museum, can figure that out pretty easily.
And again, if there were no fossils
at all, the evidence from genetics alone would be more than enough.
That is how they explain it, but nevertheless it confirms that those systematic gaps exist and they are attempting to hold to the paradigm by coming up with basically an ad hoc explanation.
Evolution is still a fact, so their is nothing to 'ad hoc' here. Punctuated equilibrium, assuming one holds to it as the prevailing model, has exactly the same mechanisms as gradualism, and they're not mutually exclusive.
That was true with the epicycle theory too, until Galileo confirmed the fringe dissenter Copernicus.
The 'they laughed at X' argument is not an argument. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, and we laugh at Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort etc., for the same reasons. The lone difference being, Bozo
knew he was a clown.
No, it is based on knowledge not ignorance
You don't know, and have no possible means of knowing, what lifeforms could have evolved under conditions you are not even capable of imagining, let alone gleaning. All you have is an extremely narrow understanding of what constitutes 'life' - carbon based, water subsistent, etc. - based on your infinitesimally limited experience. Which you've arbitrarily selected out of
trillions of features within the universe, because it happens to be important to your religious views. It is absolutely based on ignorance. And arbitrariness. And a complete lack of imagination.
Professionals in astronomy and astrophysics roll their eyes at the line of reasoning you are using, when they're not tearing their hair out in frustration at hearing the same crappy arguments over and over again. I'm married to one, so I know.
Well you need to tell Dr. Goldsmith, because that is what he wrote.
Nope. You are putting the point forward, so
you defend it. You are playing bait-and-switch, whether you realize it or not.
Once again, the Big Bang describes the earliest known conditions, expansion, and early evolution of the universe. That is the only consensus, and that is
all scientists mean when they speak of a 'beginning' to the universe.
What it
does not mean is that the universe constitutes the totality of existence, and that it began with an ex nihilo creation event.
That is what you are tasked with demonstrating. And I don't care how many scientists you can find being uncareful with their words in popular publications, you will never find a 'consensus' on that, because it
doesn't exist. No one knows either of those things, because there is as yet nothing to know about them, and there is no such thing as a consensus or non-existent information.
I shouldn't have to explain this to someone who claims to be a professional scientist, but here we are.