The TOE is supported by the Fossil Record

In the topic on front loading, Randman states:

quote:

---

Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.

---

This is a misstatement of the fossil record and the claims of evolutionary biologists. The emphasis on molecular biology in recent years is because it is such a powerful tool that can analyze genetic evidence - not because the fossil record is inadequate. Fossils record morphological characters. Genes control morphological characters among many other things - so of course we would want to see what the genes tell us about evolution. I would like Randman or someone who supports his claims to provide arguments and evidence as to how "the fossil record contradicts (evolutionary biology) models in reality." Edited by deerbreh, : correct quote codes

Lots of wild claims and demands here. First of all it is not up to me to substantiate that the TOE is supported by the fossil record. That is accepted by all evolutionary biologists. The only people claiming otherwise is creationists and all you are really doing is restating the tired old creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils. Here is one link refuting that claims. Plenty there if you really want to know the subject. Way too much to try and argue here and unnecessary as this is considered a "settled science" among evolutionary biologists. CC200: Transitional fossilsRandman, I started this thread to give you the opportunity to document your claim that the fossil record does not support the TOE. You are making the extraordinary claim here so the burden of documentation is on you. Your response confirms my opinion that you have no intention of trying to defend that claim but only want to "stir the pot" and make demands for documention of what is "settled science" to everyone but creationists.

Well the fossil record is hard to reconcile with a literal reading of Genesis so it is understandable that creationists need to try to poke holes in the fossil record.