The gaps argument is completely useless, but it will never go away. I will explain how it is a genius argument in terms of going around in circles though:
We have fossil 1, and we have fossil 2.
There are similarities in both, so we reckon fossil 2 is a descendant of fossil 1.
"There is a gap!" the creationists cry.
We find fossil 1.5.
Fossil 1.5 is a "transitional fossil" between 1 and 2.
"There is a gap!" the creationists cry.
We find fossils 1.25 and 1.75.
"There is a ga...."
You get the idea. Creationists will always go back to the gaps theory for the simple reason that there are so many different mutations going on you will always find one. They count that as a win. They ignore all the "hits" on the fossil record that we have.
The fossil record is a tiny amount of evidence compared to genetic evidence anyway.
We have fossil 1, and we have fossil 2.
There are similarities in both, so we reckon fossil 2 is a descendant of fossil 1.
"There is a gap!" the creationists cry.
We find fossil 1.5.
Fossil 1.5 is a "transitional fossil" between 1 and 2.
"There is a gap!" the creationists cry.
We find fossils 1.25 and 1.75.
"There is a ga...."
You get the idea. Creationists will always go back to the gaps theory for the simple reason that there are so many different mutations going on you will always find one. They count that as a win. They ignore all the "hits" on the fossil record that we have.
The fossil record is a tiny amount of evidence compared to genetic evidence anyway.
