Loudmouth said:
What "utter lack"? Even Darwin listed an obvious transition in the fossil record.
Negative.
Darwin did not admit the fact that the geological fossil formations completely lacked proof of his theory, then go on and contradict himself as you are saying above.
Whatever it is that you are talking about was hoped for evidence.
Nothing can erase the Darwin quote and its fact even though you are desparately trying to do so.
What Darwin was talking about is the selective nature of the fossil record
You can spin it this way but the fact remains that there were no intermediates displayed in the record.
How did an inantimate object (the fossil record) just so happen to not select the very thing the theory said had to be ?
This is rhetorical.
You and Darwin are making excuses for the geological record not showing the main claim of your theory: macroevolution.
So are we to believe the fossil record has a mind that selectively eliminated from showing the very thing your theory says is a voluminous fact ?
How did an inantimate object accomplish this ?
At this point, Darwin and you are arguing as fact something that did not exist via insisting the fossil record somehow chose not to show exactly what the theory says it must show. This is intelligence insulting falsification evasion at its plain worst.
You and Darwin are quote mining the fossil record: making it say exatly opposite of what it says and what Darwin admitted it said.
which isn't too unexpected given the rare occurence of fossilization.
Invoking the lack of evidence a sweetheart exemption. Sorry, no evidence means the theory is untrue.
Like I said in the OP - assumptions are substituted for evidence based on the undisputed facts of microevolution. Fossilization is rare which means you are using this fact as an excuse for the lack of evidence. This means you are relying on philosophy (naturalism) while allowing the reliance to be viewed as based on evidence.
The lack of the necessary fossilization as admitted by you cannot be held as evidence for the theory. The lack of evidence for whatever reason disproves the theory not the other way around.
Gould also recognized what Darwin and Milton recognized, yet the lack of the very thing that the theory says is true has no geological fossil evidence.
The formations show species appearing, then slightly changing over time, then disappearance. How could it show all that but somehow decide/select not to show exactly what you assert is fact ?
Answer: Because macroevolution is assumed because Genesis is not an option.
The lack of any evidence for macro proves and corroborates Genesis as true still.
Let's see what Darwin actually said:
"For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."
A massive excuse for the lack of transitionals.
What evidence supports this predictible opinion ?
The fact remains: the geological record shows nothing of the very thing Darwin's theory says it must. In response, he produces an evidence defying excuse of why an inantimate object, something that has no ability to have bias, actually refutes his theory.
Darwin accepts as fact that the fossil record does not show macro but then contrary to the facts asserts his theory is fact nontheless, based on what physical evidence Charles ?
Answer: Evolution of the gaps, insert opinion in the gaps contrary to the physical evidence.
The excuse and assertion contrary to the fossil record is only done because Genesis is not an option.
Darwin has no sense and was not loyal to evidence/fossil record.
BTW, Darwin did not have a science degree and it surely does show.
What Darwin is saying is that fossil preservation is rare and will not always capture each small change, or as Darwin put it "more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters".
No he is not.
He made an excuse as to why there is no evidence of his theory in the fossil record.
Funny how the record failed to capture what he admits is the one thing which falsifies his theory.
Rarity or not: no evidence, macro ASSUMED because Genesis is not an option.
Assumptions are not evidence.
The Milton and Darwin quotes in context have repelled falsification. Macro is assumed based on micro.
The most "respected" theory of all time has admittedly no evidence in the fossil record but is accepted as fact: now you see why I say "because Genesis is not an option".
Other important quotes (from Chapter 9:On the Imperfection of the Geological Record). You can read Chapter 9 here:
"Also, only a scant percentage of fossil bearing sediments have been searched. Can we really say that these fossils are absent if we have only looked at 0.00000001% of the earth?
But over a 100 years later Milton confirms the situation had not changed and so did Gould.
Well funded geological enquiries have been conducted ad nauseum since the 19th century, which means you can augment the above figure to 100 percent.
Ed Vidence