Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

*Micro evolution* (within a given species) has been demonstrated.
*Macro evolution* (moving from lower- to higher biocomplexity and
achieving new speciation) has never been demonstrated.



You know that is false.

What you call *Macro-evolution* is demonstrated in the fossil
record. You may not be convinced by that demonstration, (and
if not, why not?). But THAT does [not] justify your claim that the
demonstration does not exist.


If it were "demonstrated" there would be no contention on
the matter *within* he scientific community. But there is,

Where have you seen this contention *within* the scientific
community. I though you said ID couldn't get published.

in some measure because of the absence of transition fossils.

BTW,
Macromutaion ('hopeful monster') theory predicts that for some
major changes there will be no transitional organisms.

Since direct experimental demonstration is impossible due to
the timelines claimed, the next best level would be fossil
records demarcating the ooze-slime-....-Hillary Clinton
intermediate forms. But these are strangely absent ...


If those are absent it is strange indeed.

What happened to the evidence for homo erectus, a 'transition
fossil' beween homo sapiens and homo habilis? What happened
to the evidence for homo habilis, a 'transition fossil'
bewtween homo erectus and australopithecus africanus?

What happened to fossil evidence for magnetotactic bacteria?

What happened to the fossil evidence for numerous species
more complex than magnetotactic bacteria but not yet clearly
the same as australopithecus afarensis, like early placental
mammals?

Your claim of 'no intermediate forms' is baffling. OTOH it
is true that there have not yet been found fossil evidence
for *all* intermediate forms. So yes, there are differences
between homo sapiens and homo erectus.

--

FF