intermediates and the fossil record

JAD made an interesting comment: He is entirely correct. While evos take great pride in debating about a paltry few candidates they claim are solid intermediates, they generally fail to realize that by doing so they point out the fact that for all intensive purposes, what we see is the exact opposite of the prediction of mainstream evo models.There is no gradualistic phenomena seen in the fossil record, but the opposite, and just as telling, we don't see it in "contemporary biota." We just don't.For example, we never see "the common ancestor." You'd think if evolution occurs via Punctuated Equilibrium, the original parent species/genera/family would still be around, but that just doesn't appear to be the case. We may see that (I don't know) with some varities, perhaps called species, but we don't ever seem to see the theorized common ancestor of various larger taxa, either in the fossil record or among living species.We don't see any evidence whatsoever of gradualistic evolution. If we did, we'd see step by step whole species evolving into different species and into new genera, new families of genera, etc, etc,....The failure of mainstream evos to account or even admit to this fact, imo, is evidence of something terribly wrong with the reasoning process behind mainstream evo thinking; which some call evolutionism, and which I think is an apt term to describe the non-empirical nature of the hypothesis.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Rather than saying that we "don't see" so and so could you point out what cases are being put forward as examples and what is wrong with those cases. This will establish your understanding and position for others to follow up on.In addtion, could you explain what you think we would see in contemporary living things that would support the transitionals (if evolution was correct) and why what we do see does not support it. This will clarify what you are talking about since it appears you have an unusual idea of what should be found.Remove the last paragraph and do not resort to such distractions in the thread or it will be closed prematurely.

Nosey, what's to bolster? The cases presented by evos are so minuscale in scope that if everyone single one of them were considered true, that the evidence as a whole would still disprove the gradualistic models of mainstream evolution.We don't see them is a pretty straighforward comment. The fossil record does not record "the common ancestor": to my knowledge ever.Same with living biota. You continually see the claim that, say, all such and such species evolved from a common ancestor, but we never see the common transitional ancestor. We don't see that for whales.What is the common whale ancestor, for example, for the 2 main types of whales?Basilosaurus is not considered a direct ancestor. What creature was?This is repeated over and over again.The fossil record just records abrupt changes and stasis. When we do see fine-grained changes, it is not from one whole type of creature into something remarkably different, but mere varities of the same species, and often we see a range where the species evolves into one direction only to evolve back, showing a conservatism within evolution that is the exact opposite of what is required to produce macro-evolution.We just flat out have absolutely no evidence for gradualistic evolution in the fossil record whatsoever. We have no proposed transitionals with the previous, say, 10 species and the proceeding 10 species, or even a significant percentage of them present in the fossil record, and most tellingly, we also don't see that among living biota.You could argue fossil rarity if living biota demonstrated something different, but it doesn't, and even arguing fossil rarity is an unsubstantiated claim.If you are saying the intermediates are present, then please show them. Show, say, a series of 10-15, or at least most present, so we can see how one species gradually morphed into a different genera or family or order.

Since it's showcase natter on to your hearts content.

This thread never passed through PNT that I can see, moving it there so it can go through the approval cycle.Edited by Admin, : PAF => PNT

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Showcase forum.

No problem....maybe it will generate some good discussion there.

I thought it was a proposed topic in Showcase since it was based on JAD's thread....not sure though of the best or right way to propose a Showcase topic.