1. No. That's your assumption and such an assumption doesn't hold up under rigorous science.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Let's read what evolutionists have said themselves:
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary-Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883).
2. As posted earlier, scientists have admitted to lack of transitional fossils - there are huge gaps. The ones assumed to be are just that: assumed. It's very subjective and that's why there is no consensus. Do you even bother to read the quotes from evolutionists themselves?
Seriously, using Wikipedia as a scientific reference?
Finally, it was expected to find transitional fossils. Apparently you didn't read the quotes from evolutionists. And since the fossil record didn't bear out their prediction they postulated PE to explain it away.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
