Most of us can agree that fossils have been found and have provided tangible evidence for the variety of life that existed long before man's arrival. BUT what they have NOT provided or produced evidence for is the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life BEGAN or how NEW KINDS got started thereafter.
There are major gaps or a gulf between the major divisions of animal life, such as fish for example. Fish are thought to have evolved from invertebrates and bam, boom fish jump into the fossil record? Huh?
Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.
Here's the problem though > > >
IT was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates, and that very backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become an amphibian (for water and land).
* a pelvis would have to be added
* in some amphibians the entire backbone would have to change so much as to be unrecognizable
* skull bones are different
* fish fins must become jointed limbs with wrists and toes (for amphibian formation)
* major alterations in muscles and nerves
* Gills must change to lungs
* In fish there is a 2 chambered heart and in amphibians it is 3 chambered
If evolution was correct, then how is it that there are no fossils showing these changes? But Boom we have fish !
Because not every bone fossilizes. In fact most bones don't fossilize. In fact almost nothing fossilizes. There is also a huge bias when it comes to the fossilization process. Certain areas generate fossils much better. Large hard things tend to fossilize really well while soft things tend to do so rather poorly. Etc Etc. This means that animals that live in the right place, are the right size, and have the right types of bones will become the majority of fossils while most animals (entire species even) will never leave a single fossil on the earth.
Oh and I'm not done Raist.
1B) To further BRIDGE the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have to undergo a radical change, tongues and eyes too.
* fish receive sound through their bodies, yet toads and frogs have eardrums
* fish do not have extendable tongues but amphibians such as toads do
* amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink
- - - - - - * * * * * - - - - -
2) Then you have the gulf or ravine that exists between amphibian and reptile . . .
The most difficult is the origin of the shelled egg > >Creatures prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water and were fertilized externally. Whereas reptiles laid their eggs on land and the embryos inside them were still in a watery environment. The shelled egg was the answer but the way it was fertilized had to change radically. It required internal fertilization but BEFORE the egg is surrounded by a shell.
2A) This would require new sexual organs, mating procedures and instincts.
2B) Enclosing the egg in a shell would require further remarkable changes for the reptile such as various membranes and sacs in the shell called amnion. Reptiles have another membrane called the allantois receiving and storing embryonic waste kind of like a bladder.
2C) Other complex differences would need to occur such as a chemical change. Embryos in fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as soluable urea, but the urea in shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the embryos. This is where the chemical change would come in. The wastes being the insoluble uric acid are stored within the allantois membrane.
SUMMATION:
Now you want me to believe that we just don't have fossils for these, yet we have fossils that exist in museums for many eras, but you can't find a one to explain this. Ok you can stick to that theory if you want, but then is sounds more like evolution is a bunch of jump starts, gaps and evolutionary leaps instead of the slow gradual process of evolving. Might be why they call it evolutionary "theory".