Hello Calypsis4 and welcome to EVC
I think we may be able to clear up some confusion if we can agree to a definition of biological evolution. I know you posted the Huxley quote about evolution, and several members disagree with it. How about this definition from
Wiki on Biological Evolution:
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.
Notice that this definition (and any that would be acceptable) does not mention rates of change. Evolution does not require any specific rate of change.
This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. This is what everyone here wants you to explain.
Now let us compare this to
Gravity:
Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.[1] In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency which lends weight to objects with mass
Notice again how that definition does not mention anything about rates of acceleration of objects towards each other.
What does this have to do with this thread?
Well essentially, what you have argued for 120 some posts is,
"Here is a picture of a fossil. Here is a picture of an existing species. There is not enough change so evolution is false."
It is the same argument as this,
"The gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.8 m/sec squared. The gravitational acceleration on Jupiter is 25.9 m/sec squared. The two planets have different accelerations therefore gravity is false."
If this is not your argument please, for the clarity of everyone here lay out your argument why living fossils disproves evolution.
Thanks,
Joe
Edited by dokukaeru, : removed incomplete thought