Where exactly did he note that?
How about throughout the entirety of chapter fourteen of
On the Origin of Species? Ever read it?
Here are a few choice quotes that relate directly to what I said of Darwin:
"That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny."
"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?
We meet with no such evidence, and
this is the most obvious and forcible
of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. ...
I can answer these questions and grave objections
only on the supposition that the geological record is far more
imperfect than most geologists believe."
"As
natural selection acts solely by accumulating
slight, successive, favourable
variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of `Natura non facit saltum,' which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory simply intelligible."
Darwin spends most of his concluding chapter discussing the glaring arguments that can be made against his theory, admitting in numerous instances that he has no actual proof, only speculation, and doing the best he can to convince his readers to put aside their "ignorance" and embrace an open-minded approach to what to them must seem like a ridiculous conclusion, all things considered.
None of those things should ever have existed if Darwin was correct. You really should learn something about evolutionary biology before attacking it.
The examples were exaggerated to make a point. We don't have anything in the fossil record showing the transition between species. There are no dogs with the evidence of wings forming. There are no elephants with necks beginning to extend. We have animals that are improved versions of their ancestors, but not animals that clearly evolved from an alleged ancestor.
Sort of close. It shows the first appearance of most animal phyla, over a period of tens of millions of years.
And this, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record is little more than micro-organisms. The existence of complex life in the pre-Cambrian period is speculation, not fact.
Completely wrong. For example, humans are in the phylum Chordata. The earliest chordates looked something like this:
(source:
Functional Genomics Thickens the Biological Plot)
Do think humans have almost the same form as that?
This is nothing more than confirmation bias. The scientists created the "phyla" for organization purposes. I don't care what they say, it can't be proven that this is the ancestor of a human being.
There are in fact numerous examples of transitional fossils.
Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Since we do in fact survive in every climate on the planet, your claim is clearly wrong.
We survive in every climate on the planet,
with artificial aid. We are not talking about survival of the most aided by technology. We are talking about survival of the fittest. Without heat (fire), shelter, and other modern aids, human beings will die in most climates from exposure. It's a fact.
But to put my original point into a more appropriate context, what I was essentially saying is this. Our evolutionary plan has us going from being bigfoot (assuming for the fun of the argument that they exist), who can survive in sub-zero temperatures without fire or shelter, see in the dark, who are strong enough to break trees with their bare hands, and who can kill animals without weapons or tools of any kind ... and then one day there was this tiny, hairless, weak, defenseless, BUT SMART, baby bigfoot. And it survived, despite all odds, in the mountains, in freezing temperatures, with a mother who couldn't make fire. Then one day, it grew up to be a smart bigfoot who figured out how to make fire and shelter for itself, so that its offspring would be able to survive.
That's the ridiculousness of the evolutionary argument. The REAL evolution would have been a nine-foot tall, hairy, strong, healthy bigfoot who was smart enough to figure out how to make fire. All "slight" modifications to our ancestors that would allegedly lead to what we are today would make each successive generation weaker, not stronger. It's contrary to the whole argument of natural selection.
Quite true. But a blind species is quite capable of producing offspring with extremely rudimentary sight, and a species with extremely rudimentary sight is capable of producing a species with slightly less rudimentary sight, and so on.
Sorry, but I call shenanigans on this one. This is as ridiculous as Darwin's argument of animal being born with wings so it can fly, all relative to its environment. As I said before, giraffes didn't grow long necks so they could eat the leaves on tall trees. They eat the leaves on the tall trees because they have long necks. If the island is sinking beneath your feet, you don't develop gills so you can live in the water. You just drown.
A qualifying mutation has to be inconsequential, but helpful. And it will always be a minor change, and that minor change will give the animal an edge over others of the same species, until the change becomes a dominant trait. No species is going to be miraculously born with wings, eyes, or anything else, that it does not already possess in some form. You can't prove otherwise. Like everything else with evolution, it's all speculation.
Might I ask what your qualifications are, that you are telling thousands upon thousands of scientists that they have no idea how to do their own jobs? Biologists are under the impression that evolution is the foundational theory for biology, and that it is supported by and explains a vast range of data. You think they're completely wrong. Who do you think knows more about biology, you or the biologists?
My qualifications are that I've read some books on the subject, from both perspectives. These scientists are not infallible gods. They are men and women who look at the evidence, and then draw conclusions from that evidence. In most cases, I find that they are drawing conclusions based on speculation, not fact. Just because they believe that there is a link between this species and that, it doesn't make it so. Just because they speculate that we all descended from a single amoeba, that doesn't make it so.
It is also worth noting that there are plenty of accredited scientists who do not agree with evolution. There are too many questions that just can't be answered.
But in any case, I gave my two cents. You responded and asked questions. I answered the best I could. I have some other things to do, so I don't really care to continue this back and forth debate. It think your cup might be a little too full for my taste.