Do fossils disprove evolution?

Hi, Cpthiltz.I wanted to add briefly to what Wounded King said about fossilization.I work with spiders, so I spend a lot of time on my hands and knees. Everyday, within the confines of a single crop field, millions of insects and other small animals die.But, as I search the ground, I only occasionally come across insect or worm carcasses. Most are consumed completely and torn to shreds by scavengers, such as ants. Usually, all that I ever see are disarticulated parts (a beetle's head, a dragonfly's wing, the shed exoskeleton of a springtail, etc.).If I see so little remnants of the deceased the day after it happens, why should I expect there to be a plentiful supply from a hundred million years ago?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Mark. This is a cool one. It's hard to be sure that it was a mutation, rather than some non-genetic developmental issue, but still...

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICDesign. This is an interesting development, to me.How do you know that most mutations are either harmful or neutral?You certainly haven't seen most mutations, so you must be basing this argument on the tiny subset of mutations that actually have been seen, right?Could it be that you think patterns seen in nature constitute "facts"?Why don't you consider other patterns seen in nature (e.g. radioactive decay rates and rock layer superposition) to also constitute "facts"?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICDesign.No, what it comes down to is that there are a number of general patterns that can be seen in the natural world, including radioactive decay rates; biological progression of fossils with the chronological layering of geological strata; nested hierarchy in genetics studies; and the observable action of mutation and natural selection in ecological studies.These patterns, in combination, indicate that gradually accumulating changes over long periods of time are responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.I ask you again: if you can declare that "most mutations are harmful or neutral" is a "proven fact" based on a pattern seen in a proportionally small sample of observed mutations, why can I not declare that "species are evolving overtime" is a "proven fact" based on a pattern of biological radiation seen in a proportionally small sample of observed fossils?You are not being consistent in your criticisms and acceptances of pattern and theory in the natural world.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.