Shouldn't we have thousands of transitional fossils? [YOU RESPOND]
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:51 PM
Subject: [General Question] Evolution
Ahustine sent a message using the contact form at
So, you argue that Australopithecus afarensis aka lucy should be sufficient
to conclude and show that Macro-evolution is correct? What do you think
about this statements?"Shouldn't we have thousands of examples of
Macro-evolution at this point..meaning transitional forms from one species
to another? And shouldn't we have significant numbers of transitional
fossils and bones all over the place? If the theory its true then it takes
billions of years for species to evolved to another species....Is that
taking place now?? Because if its true then we should be constantly
evolving to a different species as we speak!" Darwin stated that evolution
would be proved based upon the assumption that transitional forms would be
discovered. You can check out the origin of species for that claim. So,
since you know what natural selection means and you know that fossils
support transitions, all I am asking is for proof. If Lucy is all you say
there is...and If I can show you how Lucy is not a transitional form, then
would you admit you might be wrong? And I am not asking for "ALL
fossils"...just enough to conclude the THEORY to be true. All that I am
asking is for proof,,,,not a website.
See if you can answer each question if you'd like.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.