Ed Vidence said:
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.
And yet he listed fossil formations that demonstrated transitional species, otherwise known as a record of macroevolution.
The problem is that your quote is out of context. Here is the full version.
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed... ".
Did Darwin actually think that the lack of intermediates was a silver bullet for his theory? Not at all. How about you start dealing with the full quote instead of the twisted, out of context quote that only a darkened hearted person would post.
Whatever it is that you are talking about was hoped for evidence.
And supported by evidence. Horses again, a beautiful example of macroevolution made obvious in the fossil record.
Nothing can erase the Darwin quote and its fact even though you are desparately trying to do so.
No need to erase it. Putting it in context ruins your argument.
You can spin it this way but the fact remains that there were no intermediates displayed in the record.
Define "transitional" and then try and argue that the fossil horse species above do not fit that definition.
How did an inantimate object (the fossil record) just so happen to not select the very thing the theory said had to be ?
It has supplied it, and only removal of God Sense is preventing you from seeing it.
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.
Only a misunderstanding of Darwin would lead you to believe this. What Darwin was saying is that "Why don't we see
millions upon millions of intermediate forms instead of the thousands we do see." He answered this question by stating that the fossil record could very well be incomplete. You have yet to show that the fossil record
should be complete, especially since we have only looked at a scant percentage of fossil bearing strata.
Invoking the lack of evidence a sweetheart exemption. Sorry, no evidence means the theory is untrue.
No lack of evidence. See horsies above.
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.
I never said there was a lack of necessary fossilization, just a lack of complete fossilization of every species that ever lived. There were billions of passenger pigeons in the US before their extinction but we have yet to find one fossil specimen of this species. Fossilization will not preserve every species, plain and simple.
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.
Milton is a hack and Gould has been quoted out of context to such a point that it is almost libelous.
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 ?
Species appearing is exactly what you claim doesn't happen.
The lack of any evidence for macro proves and corroborates Genesis as true still.
Lack of evidence is also proof that leprechauns created the world. Try again.
The Milton and Darwin quotes in context have repelled falsification. Macro is assumed based on micro.
The Darwin quote is repelled by putting it in context.
The Milton quote is repelled by the fossil evidence, of which the record of the macroevolution of horses is just one. Quotes do not trump evidence.
