And your evidence for the direct creation of species by a deity is … so completely absent that is does not even rise to the level of baloney.
Punctuated equilibrium can explain that .
Sometimes. In the case of the fossil record, science cannot tell - confirm - the process that caused it. Fossils are EVIDENCE of Darwinian evolution, but fossils can’t CONFIRM that Darwinism is the correct explanation for what is observed. You are conflating mere evidence with demonstrable fact. How do you know aliens fools around with genetic engineering aren’t responsible for the fossil record?
I’m not talking about a religious explanation.
None of these confirm that neo-Darwinian is the correct explanation for the fossil record. If you think they do, you’re deluded and not being scientific, or even logical.
The Bible doesn’t say God created any creature “ex nihilo”.
Even if you produce transitionals, they DON’T CONFIRM the Neo-Darwinist explanation for the fossil record - they only amount to evidence. Do you understand the difference between evidence and a demonstrable fact? Come on - it ain’t rocket science!
Science does not look for the “correct” explanation because it knows that is an unattainable ideal. Science looks for “the best explanation we have currently”. That is why all scientific theories can be replaced, as Newton’s gravity was replaced by Einstein’s gravity. In the case of the development of species, Darwin’s theory, as modified, is the best explanation we currently have.
Erm… This is science, and science can only work with the available evidence. As and when new evidence emerges it will be looked at. Given that, all scientific theories are provisional and open to change. For example, in the 1950s Kimura’s Neutral Theory was incorporated into evolution.
A so called transitional could be losing it’s once used features, ala devolution.
And it could be gaining features, such as wings. Evolution produces change, which might be a loss, a gain or both.
It is more likely they are in the process of losing a feature once had.
Birds lost their teeth and gained wings. One loss, one gain. You emphasise the loss and ignore the gain. I look at both.
Nubs getting a little bigger over generations with no apparent function led to wings. Amazing what blind unguided chance can do.
You are very badly informed. Tetrapod forelimbs with an obvious function grew feathers for heat insulation of for sexual display. Those functional forelimbs evolved into bird wings. See Changyuraptor yangi for an example where the hind limbs were developing into wings as well.
So they say. And then they developed step by step very complicated wing surfaces and control features just for sex and looks. One day they found they could fly with these things. Or to impress the ladies took a leap off the cliff and died.
But, they were some of the first pioneers of flight, even if their intentions weren’t pure.
Evolution will always find a way to pass that torch to the new and improved offspring .
Correct. And we also know that random mutation is a creative process, not a conservative one. The two processes are in a dynamic relationship: RM produces new stuff and NS weeds out the failures. That gives a lot of successful new stuff.
You have trillions of bacteria in your gut. Is that ‘limitless’ enough. Multiply that be every human, avery mammal, every reptile, every insect and add in all the free living bacteria in hte world. Is that ‘limitless’ enough for you. Then multiply that number by the number of generations of bacteria – some as short as 30 minutes.
And with the limitless numbers there will be another carrier along shortly. Even in a population as small as the human population, every possible point mutation occurs more than once, about 50 times. If one person who carries that mutation does, then another will live (unless the mutation is fatal).