DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Thor]

[If there's no challenge anymore, why is the word "evolution" permanentLy locked to the word "theory"?

And here we have a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as an Argument of Equivocation.

My Logic 101 professor just failed you.

---

No, it isn't. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living organisms devoloped from nonliving matter. Evolution is about what happens next.
ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
That's the loophole some try to use, now that they realize they cannot explain how life started from non-life. So tell me, where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life, in order for all other living things in existence to have then evolved from it? Let me know.

It's not a "loophole", genius. It's two different areas of science.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:[/b]
But that's just it. I have educated myself, and all I keep finding are admissions from paleontologists that the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps.

I guess you've never seen the fossils that demonstrate the evolution of the horse. It's a pretty complete picture. Human evolution is pretty complete as well.

The existence of gaps is another way of saying: "There are no bones linking one type of animal/species/family to an entirely different type."

Bullshit. Apparently you've never heard of Tiktaalik. It's a creature whose existence was predicted and was found exactly where scientists expected it to be found! It shows a definite transition from fish to tetrapods.

Below are a couple examples of what the paleontologists have been saying for the past 30 years.

Hey, let's put on our hardhat and go quote mining!