2. The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
''"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more.''
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/4 more examples of transitional fossils:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#41832e222d8dThat's a nice attempt at evading the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. If there were intermediated fossils, they could be pointed at, and evolutionists wouldn't have to make all kinds of excuses for their not being there. As it is, evolution people who try to suggest that intermediate fossils are unimportant, fill the books with gibberish so that people are distracted from the point that there aren't any intermediate fossils. No intermediate fossils means no evolution in the sense of evolution theory... or have you found the string of those intermediate fossils that show evolution changes as they go?
If there were evolution beneficial mutations in some animal species, according to evolution theory, it would happen only once, here and there, with big time gaps of no evolution mutation between happenings. This means that all the interbreeding between a mutated animal and the normal animals would have bred the mutation out of existence. It's the way that it works. Immune systems do that in mutations.
Punctuated evolution was an attempt at pushing mutations closer together in time, so that there would be less chance of a mutation being destroyed by the immune system before the next mutation could come along.
Evolutionists are simply grasping at straws. And the straws are falling to pieces before they can really take hold of them. The reason why evolution has gained such strength, is exactly the same reason why religions spring up with great strength throughout history. Like the other religions, the evolution religion will gradually die out as more and more people wake up to the fact that there is essentially nothing factual to support it, and that evolution scientists are simply talkers who have talked people into believing something that has no substance.
Evolution is a hoax.