One of the many things evolutionists avoid to respond

Every man equipped with reason should follow this topic and read the
answers the evolutionists are forced to give, you decide then if they are convincing or not : )As for the evolutionists, please do not include pointless links in your replies from sources that rely upon speculation or their own subjective view, and please, DONT dissicate this topic, a simple question, needs a simple descent answer.Einstein said:"Every intelligent fool is cabable of making a problem look more comlex, but it takes the touch of a genius to simplify it".Question:Why do we dont see the a smooth graduate line in the fossil records , instead we see gaps, followed by another distinct specie.And remember, similarities between species in your evolutionary tree is not an evidence to prove anything, if you believe in Allah,for instance, then you interpret the same similarities as signs of Him guiding evolution into what he wants.
Its only a question of perspective.Use the example of how Compsognathus (A chicken sized reptile), could by means of random mutation and natural selection evolve into Archaeopteryx(A bird living 150 million years ago, fully capable of flying).Explain the process thouroughly because you are sure to be replied.And if you wish to skip the fact that fossils are missing, then I dont regard you as scientists, but as the best of athletes, jumping over the largest gaps without the smallest problems.

To mark24: Im quite embaressed because I dont really understand the question properly...but, yes I do believe that in most cases ( especially when we are talking about millions of years), large quantity of the fossils will perish.However, and this is replied to John too; because of the distinct differences between Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx, I dont believe I ask too much in my search to find only ONE single replica indicating that there were intermediats to Archaeopteryx, if your theory really is true then not thousands but many millions of them linking the species above would exist.
And most of them wouldnt be able to fly at all, yet still developing through evolutionary processes the anatomy needed to do it perfectly.
WHY and HOW and WHERE`S the proof(similarities disregarded as evidence). Sincerely: Delshad

Correction, "millions of fossils (would) have existed" . Sorry about the mistake : )

To Johns comment that:" even if we would find the fossils of every creature that has existed, we would still find gaps in the fossil record".IMHO: No, not if the "gaps" were so small that it could be within ONE generations limits of reproducing a variety in the genome.

Mark24,Generally The bulk of the Geological column would be in the cambrian period I would believe, but I could be wrong.

Im sorry John, but im kinda sleepy now. (Its 2 pm here)
Ill continue this as soon as possible.
Hope youll continue the debate tommorow.Good night

Thanks for the tip : )

Dear Mark24 : I believe it did end sometime during the end of the extinction of the Dinosaurs, Craetacious i believe its called.
After the impact of the asteroid, maybe the environment wasnt as suitable for fossil preservation as before.Dear John: However I find it quite amusing that the evolutionary process between Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, that screams for an explanation, just cant be found.
My point is that in some major "leaps" in the history of evolution, the first fish, the fish into an amphibian, or the amphibian into a reptile, such organs as lungs or a way of giving alive birth, are mainly made of soft tissues.
Let me explain myself ( This is going to sound repetetive if you have read my other topic about the human eyebrow, but Im sorry :I saw in a topic Hanno made, about HOW the first fish came up on land, and he got the reply, " some fishes did have secondary traits that were advantagous , and were built upon by evolutionary processes"
Lets stop at the secondary traits, why did the genome in the fish that already could breathe under water, "start" the developement
of an alternative way of staying alive above surface.
My guess is that during the first million year, the system was not significant to give any advantagous at all, the "organ" would have been very small and very useless.
So how come that natural selection and random mutation evolved the "vestigial organ" to work above surface, even if it was for a few seconds of use, when clearly the advantagous beneath the surface is none, did it plan ahead?
I realise that it is a clearly impossible task for me to ask you to show me the fossils in the examples above because soft tissue tend to perish quite fast
Thats why in the example of Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, where the differences of the sceletal structure are remarkable, and the long time needed for secondary traits " its arms ? ) to evolve into wings
is there.
Indeed, the construction of a wing is so fragile and delicate that even if you were to rip out only a few feathers from its wings, it wouldn`t be able to fly (I dont find it likely that the wings and the avial feathers would once have been used for anything else but for flying with).
And once again, the fact that enormous quantities of the specie once have lived.
I dont think Im asking too much when I only wish to see ONE fossil replica.Sincerely, Delshad

Mainstream religion?
Look, Quetzal, Im 18 years old and Ive just recently developed an interest for this kind of issues.
Its unfair of you to suggest that my questions would represent Islamic viewpoints of the creation, Im only trying to learn.
And forget the idea that I jump from thread to thread, if you really were honest, then you would have included my second topic in your reply were it clearly states that the example of the human eyebrow was only to make a point, to tell a similarity.You should have included this quote by Tranquility Base: "Statements of 'paraphylicity' or 'convergent evolution' or 'this fossil was folded in' are rarely facts They are suppositions consistent with the evolutionary framework and do not rule out alternative viewpoints. Within your framework they are highly logical observations and exceptions"And who am I to know everything, this is a debate, right? So if I write a topic that isnt accurate in its information, then Im sorry.
But my idea of it was that when that happens, people who are more experienced than me would let me know that in a nice way.
Not throwing it on my face on another topic hoping to discredit me, if that was your goal then you have succeded, congrats!

Youre absolutely right, the fish could have thinner membrane because that variation is within limits of its genome, isnt it?
But something that is outside , something that would require a new organ or a different metabolism , that could be done only by a punctuated equilibrium (a mutation replacemt in a grand scale) giving just the convienent necessities for natural selection to build upon.
Ive read that since the early fifties, experiments have been made on a certain type of fly to see if by random mutation or punctuated equilibrium, a new organ would appear.
The results so far is at its peak, hazardous or non effective, not an increase of genetic information has been achieved, only loss or replacemt of previously available.
I know that in nature, we are talking about millions of years, but still, wouldnt the fact that these experiments were made in an enviroment where the chances of it are very high(and the speed of that flies re- production rate) somehow balance the chances in a way?
John wrote: "You have to understand that we are dealing with a small fraction of the whole picture. There is nothing anyone can do about that. Asking questions for which we haven't adequate information isn't valid. For example, asking you to provide evidence that Moses existed is valid. Asking you to provide the day and time that Moses was born is not valid. The first question is answerable the second question isn't."If you believe that by not getting an answer to a question I can walk out of here convinsed that evolution is wrong, you have misunderstood me.
But by asking questions that no one has a proper answer to, i believe it is safe to accept that there can be other possibilities explaining the diversity of life.
Why is it so that the fossils never show us a find of specie possesing organs or traits that have been used or will used in the future, punctuated equilibrium can`t be credited alone to have made the transformation of Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx in an instance, right?
Even if one where to happen, inorder to fill the missing links , many are sured to have occured,and plenty of time would have passed, thus many generations not possessing the ability to fly yet but still developing wings (indirectly) for that purpose, and not , just as you mentioned, down , but avial feathers, right?Delshad

Mark24, Here in Sweden there is a very similar word to the english word flood, (flod=river), so in my haste I made the conclusion that the underlying question was ,where and when was the bulk of the geological column made.
So of course, i replied that I believed that fossils were best preserved under water and that between the Cambrian period and the crataecious (because of the quantity of the animal fauna during that time).
However I was soon to realise(because of Andya`s reply) that you are refering to the biblical flood were there was a global flood covering most of the area of the world.
The answer is , no I dont believe in a global flood.
The flood was local and was , i think, a result of the meltdown of ice mass during the Iceage were large amounts of water crosses gibralter and has a devastaing effect on the coastals of the mediterranian.

I had a feeling that you were up to something

John said:
"Think about several terrestrial animals covered with down-like feathers. They fall off of a cliff or out of a tree. Those with down which provide a little more air resistance will have a better chance of survival. Over enough time you get creatures that can glide a little bit, then glide a lot. The creatures depend on the ability more and more. Stronger muscles make a better glider. Lighter bones make a better glider. Eventually you have a true flying creature."Hmm, isnt it so that animals have instincts?
So, it is a rare occasion that an animal would "fall", out of a cliff or a tree.
And if they would fall, then it is most certainly due to factors like, the wind pushing them or being chased down by a predator.
Keeping in mind the above said, such rare occasions to me isnt enough to by means of natural selection (in the course of a few million years), evolve a reptile into a bird.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it so that the fossils never show us a find of a specie possesing organs or traits that have been used or will used in the future, punctuated equilibrium can`t be credited alone to have made the transformation of Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx in an instance, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain better?What i meant was that why dont the fossils, or the animals alive today for that matter, show us that they have traits that doesnt have a function whatsoever (but have been in the past, or maybe (indirectly) is about to be used in the future).
So far, what i have seen, every organ has a function, and if we find a one that dont, then it is usually because of our lack of knowledge in that organ.That is why I used the example of the Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, because in that case, and in other similar cases(such as the the evolutionary process of the bat), somewhere on the line, many generations not possessing the ability to fly yet but still developing wings (indirectly) for that purpose, are sure to have existed.
Why dont we see such kinds of fossils.Sicerely Delshad