How do you figure that? It certainly does to me when I examine the evidence. In keeping with a discussion based on facts and evidence, please explain how it does not.
number two I’m not discounting because it is less supportive.
Then why discount it?
You can make more of an argument with something that doesn’t exist because you can make it up as you go along.
That statement doesn’t make sense to me. The theory of evolution came about as an attempt to explain observed facts. Subsequent discoveries have only made the theory as a whole stronger as fossil discoveries and DNA evidence continue to fill in blank areas and confirm the predictions.
I want to know how you support evolution with so many species
How do you come to that as an argument against evolution?
and not a single thing to fill the millions and millions of gaps.
I think it’s been explained on this and other threads, but I’ll go over it again. The odds are against any particular animal or plant becoming fossilized are high. The climate, soil etc. have to be exactly right. The odds against people then finding those fossils are also high – we continue to find fossils and many may be in strata or formations that are inaccessible. So yes, there will be gaps. But - surprise! – we continue to find fossils that fill in those gaps.
You answered my original question and I have acknowledged that in every post
Not exactly. You continue to say there is no evidence of speciation after I’ve given you some. I’d like to see you acknowledge there is evidence of speciation.
yet you still ignore the central issue: Fill in the gaps... seems like a simple task.
That was not the issue you initially declared central, it seems a late add-on. However to answer you, I’ve told you above why it is not a fast or simple matter. It’s like saying, “find all the diamonds in the world now – seems like a simple matter.”
“I’d like to see you acknowledge there is evidence of speciation.” And I would have to see the evidence myself... see my brother told me Lana is a good kisser, but I wouldn’t believe it until I locked lips with her myself. I mean, he’s a lady’s man and all and I’m sure he knows but...
(tongue in cheek - no pun intended)
What I’m saying is it seems odd to me that every single one of the lines in between what you see as the evolutionary scale died out. That’s why I first said let’s leave the fossil record out of it. The “evidences” in the fossil record do not show step by step (by step) links from any given species to another. And current life doesn’t show it either. From monkey to man we lost them ALL to extinction? That’s ludicrous. So monkey is more primitive than man and man is more advanced it would stand to reason all the steps in between would be more advanced than monkey. That being said some or all of them should have survived... at least one!
That’s not faith or conjecture or supposition from distantly and remotely related fossil records or slippery salamanders... that’s logic.