The fossil record is most confusing for anti-Darwinists... true. And yet, it is just as equally puzzling for Darwinists.
I recently watched a PBS special (What Darwin Never Knew) that was very pro-evolution. While almost all of it involved simplistic observations for which any of a number of possible explanations could have equally explained the observed phenomena, yet I found it pointedly amusing when they called attention to what they called the vestiges in modern skeletons of prior evolutionary processes. In particular, they focused at length on bones in the skeletons of whales that resembled undeveloped hip bones. This, they said, evidenced the degree to which evolutionary changes had occurred in the whale and other fish species in the far-flung past.
Of course, the glaring oversight was simply this:
As they pointedly never attempted to explain... how is it that whales somehow de-"evolved" frrom four-legged or two-legged creatures requiring such hips... into sea mammals with fish-like bodies? After all, wouldn't this be taking evolution in the exact opposite direction they were claiming it had gone?
I also found it rather ridiculous how they attempted to explain what might have prompted "Nature" to have fish "evolve" into land animals with limbs instead of fins and lungs instead of gills. Their explanation: predators forced the change (?!). If this were so, and as predators are found throughout the proverbial "food chain" both in the sea and on land, both then and now, this provides no answer whatsoever.
As usual, evolutionists have a tough time coming up with the actual motivations of Nature that supposedly spark evolutionary changes. After all, it is a biological fact that the simpler the organism, the generally better suited it is to survive and propogate itself... which is supposedly the foundation of Evolutionary Theory, itself. Yet Evolution, itself, supposedly and continually manifests itself by having life forever "evolving" into ever more complex higher forms. Isn't this contrary and, in fact, counter-productive to its own founding principles?
Small wonder that, even today and contrary to the definition of all legitimate sciences, we still have no foundational and observable or otherwise testable scientific Laws for "Evolution." We have discovered, observed, and predicted the established Laws of Gravitation, Laws of Thermodynamics, Laws of Motion, Laws of the operations of gases, liquids, etc., and even Laws that desribe and predict even the highly theoretical areas of physics and Quantum realm. Yet still... after more than a hundred years... not a single Law that defines, describes or predicts the operations of "Evolution."
According to the dictionary, this lack of such laws does not describe a science... but instead, a pseudo-science.
So long as you are careful not to look past its highly simplistic explanations, Evolution makes sense. Same also with Religion, too, btw. ;)
- Upir'
