Replies

Didn't Darwin himself believe that if his theory is true, that the vast majority of fossils would be transitional forms?

Makes sense if the theory is true.

There must have been countless dead-end half-creatures that simply couldn't survive.

Pure Darwinism demands that the overwhelming vast bulk of all fossils should be clear intermediates while in real life, no clear-cut intermediate fossil has ever been found. They're still looking for the first one.

The new flavor of evolution, "Punctuated Equilibria", attempts to account for two things i.e. the lack of intermediate fossils and the impossible time frames needed to spread ANY genetic change throughout any sort of a large herd of animals (Haldane Dilemma) but, as I noted above, this "punk-eek" has its own set of problems which is just as bad as classical Darwinism. Walter Remine notes that what evolutionites are serving up now is a sort of a "smorgasbord" i.e. that no one flavor of the thing is really logically coherent and that they are serving bits and pieces of the different theories.

There must have been countless dead-end half-creatures that simply couldn't survive.

Yep. Still are. Ask any farmer how many 'sports' are born among the animals under his care every year.

Sometimes the sport has a useful characteristic, like the short limbed sheep born in Massachusetts in 1791, a sheep that couldn't jump fences, handy for a sheepherder, lethal in the wild.

That individual sheep was the ancestor of countless domestic flocks for nearly a century, until changes in shepherding practices eliminated the need for such.