Wrong wrong wrong. You must have lots of practice because you are a virtuoso at wrong.

You're wrong. I don't care how old you are or how young you were when you had any of your revelations or realizations. You are totally wrong about evolution. And when we explain even the most basic parts if it to you you are willfully and obtusely ignorant and stubborn.

You have NOT sufficiently discredited descent with modification. You have NOT sufficiently discredited selection.

You type and type and type and have absolutely nothing interesting or constructive to say.

Prove it!

List of fallacies in your argument:
"survive as the same creatures"
"have stronger offspring"
"environmental events cause changes to creatures"
"All that is really shown in the fossil record is extinction"
"This is actual physical evidence that refutes this dumb ass belief in magical evolutionary processes, and mystical creatures that never existed."
Stacks of fallacies are not evidence. They are argument. Which is all in your head until you can point at something real. Sorry.

"Now, if you want to go over all these details with me, I can do it for you."

I want to go over descent with modification. Does it happen or not? Science says it does.

Yes. I'm brainwashed. lal al alalalla.a

I'm a brainwashed victim of the evil evoldelusion scientists that are tricking me to believing living things change slowly over time. THE HORROR! So evil. So evil i would say it's the frooooits of the Deviieeell!

Teach me! Teach me the good stuff!

oh_noes wrote on Dec 8^th, 2009 at 8:00am:


"How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton, a medical doctor and biological researcher, writes that "when estimates are made of the percentage of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad as is often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189).

He explains that "of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8 percent" (Denton, p. 189)."

Basically this shows that fossilization is not rare.  And that with nearly 88% of the non birds vertebrates, we should see these transitional fossils, but we don't. They are the same as they are today in some cases 125 million years mosquito in amber, 70 million years for the opossum with no morphological changes in to a new genus. 50 million for several species including the crocodile.  If 50 million years is not enough time with enough "pressure" to change, then what is? 


Basically, there is no evidence for any evolution at all in the fossil record.  Most of it is messed up by belief and forced categorizing with no DNA.


You cannot trust anyone who makes up crap and calls it science.  Since the who fossil record and the "tree of life" is bovine garbage made up fantasy, with no DNA to link old peices of rocks with no organic matter in them, it is against the "rules" of science for these fools to call it evidence or to make any sort of organized chart of these unknown creatures.

Just looking and comparing is not a testable for of science. Without any means to use the "scientific method" on those rock fossils, you have to discard the whole thing as absolute evidence. 

What part of "Not Proven, Don't Believe" is so difficult for you?  As soon as you believe in things that you can't understand, you are religious and not rational.

I did not say "might understand" or "could understand".  I said it is impossible for you to know exactly what any fossil was without scientific evidence that is testable and repeatable.

This makes all believers in Evodelusionism, religious mystical nut jobs who's only understanding comes from brainwashing into a cult religion.

I've just address that post in another topic, in particular the reference to families which by your own defintiion of genus cannot exist. But the question still stands, define rare.