Viceroy63 wrote:Let me see if we can try this again once more. The theory of evolution claims that species evolve from lower life form species into more complex ones. The mechanism is called Natural Selection. And while natural selection is real it does not lead to a more complex life form.
The process of evolution is gradual taking millions if not billions of years to occur. In the case of a bird evolving from a reptile you would see perhaps half or slightly formed feathers but not yet feathers. The feathers themselves would take millions of years to evolve.
In those millions of years if not billions of years there would have had to lived and died an enormous amount of reptiles with half formed feathers. So where are they? Even if fossils are rare, after millions of years, even if we only find less then .01% of fossils, out of 1 Million, That is still a lot of fossils left in the earth. Again, where are they?
You can not say that we can not find those half formed feathered reptiles yet we have the first reptile before it became a bird and we have the bird as well but not any of the intermediary species with the slightly formed feathers in between. That is way too selective for fossil record keeping.
And even so, all that you have wrote states nothing to the fact that for the past 150 years Darwinists have been lying to the public. Why?
Why the need to create a Hoax if the evidence is self sustaining?
Because there is no evidence and so they must make it up or people will lose interest in this theory. So every now and then they find some recently fossilized Lemur or monkey bones and claim that this is the "Mother of all findings!" "The one that will re-write human history!" only to have to apologize for being wrong about that one as well. The thing is that the apology is often quiet and unheard while the discovery grabs national headlines.
So why do it? Why lie?
None of this is correct and I sincerely don't know where you are getting this from. Is there a book that you're reading that I should go through with you?
In many cases we see organisms losing traits that we would think would be helpful, and sometimes it's for reasons unknown. We've seen some flies lose their second pair of wings, and some other flies develop a second set of wings. The old set become little balls on sticks. Recently, shockingly, it's been discovered that all snakes have poison glands. Shocking... because you might think being poisonous would be helpful somewhere.
Another popular example would be every single early fish. Fish today are far more dexterous and faster than their ancient predecessor. They also have far more advanced gills, scales, and jaws.
And about feathers, we have hundreds of fossils with under-developed feathers on them. T-Rex juveniles had a coat of feathers. On the genetic level, birds are reptiles.
And in the modern time we have other animals with "under-developed" organs and such. Penguins, Cormorants, Emus, those all have "under-developed" flying wings. Yet they don't need them. Some other organisms are "over-developed" with organs and such that they don't need. Your Appendix is arguably useless, and has a good chance to randomly kill you. Many ants have wings that they don't use, and those wings get in the way while they travel through tunnels. Many will shed their wings over time, while some queen ants will rip their own wings off.
Organisms do not 'evolve-up' just because. They can become more complex, but they don't have to. Evolution is driven by mutation, and the mutations will only be passed on if they are helpful in some way. If there is no driving process, or reason to favor a mutated gene, then there will be no reason for that mutation to survive. Survival of the fittest in nature is that driving process. But if an organism exists without competition, then there will be no reason for it to evolve any complexity whatsoever. Instead, that organism will save on the expense of a costly (in terms of it's limited resources) adaptation. For example, if there are no other plants around on earth, then there is no reason for a tree to waste resources growing upwards. The same number of protons from the sun will hit the tree no matter how high it grows, so why waste resources growing a tall trunk?
About your time-scale, some animals have become extremely good at adaptation, and some have even done so within the human lifetime. It can be said that evolution takes large scales of time to be noticeable, but that's not a law. And as Earth is subject to extreme erosion and it's own uniquely violent weather patterns, fossilization is a rare event. Plus we have an abundance of organisms that eat the dead. Otherwise there would be bones absolutely everywhere today. So this is why we don't have a lot of fossils. But the Theory of evolution doesn't need fossils.