Edwin Taraba:
The fossil record’s Cambrian Explosion and lack of transitional forms have been known for decades to disprove Darwinism. Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted to this fact . That’s why he invented his rediculous theory of “punctuated equilibrium”.
When faced with such distortion and dissimulation, where does one begin a refutation? The fossil record unequivocally corroborates evolutionary biology and claims to the contrary have less to do with empirical data than they do with wishful thinking by those advancing them. Assertions that there are no transitional forms documented in the fossil record, for instance, do not withstand serious scrutiny. If for nothing else, the validity of evolutionary biology and the support given thereto by the fossil record have been amply demonstrated since 1861 with the discovery of BMNH 37001–both among the most beautiful and important of all fossils in the world. Nonetheless, it might be worthwhile to examine the veracity of the claim quoted herein by a quick look at the fossil record of Archosauria. For the less inspired amongst us, Archosauria (*non sensu *Gauthier 1986) is a subdivision bracketing the common ancestor of
Euparkeria + Proterochampsidae + Avesuchia and all its descendants (Benton 1999). Thus it is the single most speciose clade of terrestrial vertebrates in Earth history. A conservative list of transitional forms within this clade stretches into the dozens, and this would be without the inclusion of Aves (though there is no justification for such as it would render Archosauria paraphyletic). One fails to see any credible reason why a form such as *Confuciusornis sanctus *or
Yanornis martini or *Liaoningornis longidigitus *or *Presbyornis pervetus *should not be considered exemplar of morphological intermediates bridging two higher taxa. Perhaps you could clarify why one should not view them as the transitionals they are. Or, if the *scientia amablis *(to use Mayr’s term for Ornithology) is not to your liking, we can use any number of non-avian archosaurs. Indeed, Broom’s *Euparkeria *from the South African Karoo and its Triassic redbeds is ideal, or, say, *Sphenosuchus acutus *of the late A. D. Walker’s love. Why would either of these forms not qualify as transitionals? What of
Marasuchus or
Sinovenator changii? Surely *Huaxiagnathus orientalis *must qualify, yes? What of
Sinornithosaurus millenii? If not, as apparently you would have us accept, then it would be most sporting of you to tell us why.
As for the sorry old spectre of punctuated equilibrium. In a troublesome error which we can account to your lack of familiarity with the details of the topic, you state that S. J. Gould is the intellectual father of the concept of punctuated equilibrium. This is in fact not the case whatsoever. Punk eek is a much older idea that stems from the 1942 work of the peerless Ernst Mayr, which was only later “modified” rather egregiously by Gould and company into an overblown, shoddily supported pseudo-revolutionary concept claimed to overturn the stodgy paradigm in evolutionary research. Reality, however, has been rather cruel to punk eek *a la *Gould. Repeated analyses of Cenozoic mammalian fossil record spanning multiple clades (e.g., Hurzeler 1962, Maglio 1973, Harris & White 1979, Gingerich 1980, 1982, Fahlbusch 1983, MacFadden 1985, Krishtalka & Stucky 1985, Chaline & Laurin 1986, Carroll 1988, etc.) have consistently demonstrated gradational morphological change over time in sharp contrast to the cladogenic pattern postulated by Gould and his colleagues. I find your omission of these data most curious.
The so-called “Cambrian explosion” is largely an inaccurate statement given the discovery of the Vendian fauna which indicate a substantial adaptive radiation of eukaryotic morphotypes prior to the post-Cambrian diversification. Nonetheless, the Cambrian is by no means my speciality (I am but a humble aviphile), and I will not comment on length on it and rather leave it to others more learned.
Vindex Urvogel
Where are you guys coming from? Some creation-evolution board? I see you also speak Latin. 
)