seattle.politics

"Vosotros" wrote in message
news:13s8p5i8nek3ad2@...
>
> "Brutus" wrote in message
> news:cq-dnW3i-rHQ1VnanZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@...
>>
>> "Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
>> news:wKOdnXHy5tynP17anZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@...
>>> Brutus wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Don Homuth" wrote in message
>>>> news:u6grr3de7bioua9u0ahlo87b1udaufrn2r@...
>>>
>>> -snip-
>>>
>>>>>There are more fossils to be found, and more will be found, and thus
>>>>>far the fossil record substantiates evolution occurring in any number
>>>>>of species.
>>>
>>>>>Humans are not somehow separate from that process.
>>>
>>>> So let me see. 95% of the fossil record is missing and they fill it in
>>>> at about .05% a year...
>>>
>>> More exactly, perhaps +% of the fossil record is missing.
>>>
>>> But such fossil record as exists fits evolutionary theory quite nicely.
>>> As do the new fossils as they are turned up.
>>>
>>> After all, it would require but a single mammoth tusk or some such to
>>> show up in a Precambrian or Devonian strata to throw evolutionary theory
>>> into a tailspin. Yet except for obvious intrusive burials, no such
>>> fossil has ever been discovered.
>>>
>>> Nor will such a fossil ever be uncovered.
>>>
>>> Peace and justice,
>>
>> When you design a theory around the evidence at hand it should fit quite
>> nicely. Unfortunately there are gaps in the fossil record that a million
>> T-Rexs could walk through shoulder to shoulder and still have room for
>> Hillary's hips.
>
> The fact remains that whenever a new fossil is found, it fits into what
> was predicted previously. If it didn't, you think they'd find at least one
> glaring example of a fossil not fitting where it should between it's
> previous ancestor and following progeny. They haven't.

You might want to research that answer a bit more and come back with
something more accurate.

Brutus