Questioning Darwin

[Esquilax]

I do think they weaken the theory of evolution, because it could show that creatures are not continually evolving as many evolutionists believe.

Which would be an argument from ignorance: "We don't see it in the fossil record, and therefore it doesn't happen." Given the actual mechanism of evolution, and the fact that we can see that between generations right now, the idea that it would suddenly stop happening in the past and then start happening now is ludicrous.

There's an abundant fossil record showing evoluiton within particular species, but a very scarce record of creatures evolving from one species to a completely different species.

Lemme see if I can simplify this for you: so you agree that there's plenty of evidence showing evolution within species. Given that you agree that these changes occur, and you must understand that, as per the mechanism of natural selection, successful changes propagate and spread through a future population, you would expect those changes to repeat once they've evolved in, correct? So, an organism propagating change A would show change A among all the successful iterations of its species, and when the next generation evolves change B and that too is successful, you'd have a species that now possesses two changes- A and B- over what it used to look like generations ago. Following me so far?

That process doesn't stop. Creatures with A and B will evolve change C, which will stick too. And then change D. And then Change E. And all those changes will add up. So let's say that the original species was a dog, right? And you can look forward in time and see the descendants of that dog, who have changes A and B and C, all the way through to change Z, and because of all those changes, they look totally different. Now they walk upright (change P, let's say) and have less fur (call it change F) and no tail and so on. They look more like people than dogs!

Is it your contention that that descendant, bipedal, hairless, tailless animal is the same species as its quadrupedal, furry, tailed ancestor? Is this thing walking around on two legs with bare skin and no tail a Labrador, or not?

That's evolution. Microevolution is macroevolution, just over a smaller time scale.

I've seen the list of fossils said to be cross-overs. (Sorry, I used that term.) There's much dispute over them and it's my opinion that's it not sufficient for proof of that type of evolution.

It's too bad for you that biologists don't agree with you, then. Because I'm more likely to take my cues from the guy who actually studied for this, than I am from the guy with an ideologically based opinion. Can you even furnish me with a reason why we shouldn't consider, say, Tiktaalik, a fish with legs, to be a transitional form?