Why do people deny evolution?

Yeah, no joke. By logical extension, it's not much different from saying that since every moment in history isn't recorded, nothing has ever happened. "Don't know what happened in 1933 on March 22nd at 3:06:38 a.m. in every place on Earth? Then there is no Earth! You've all been indoctrinated!" It's much the same "reasoning" that produced Young Earth Creationism. The universe can't be more than 6,000 years old because that's all that's been accounted for in our favorite Bronze Age campfire stories.

I certainly gave you the three named species. I will, once again, present them to you in stratigraphic sequence


ICTHYOSTEGA (a real amphibian, but retaining some of the "fishopod" features--Upper Mid Devonian
-------------------------------------
Tiktaalik rosaea (A fish with advanced "amphibian" features -LOWER MID DEVONIAN

-------------------------------------
EUSTHENOPTERON----(a lobe finned fih with clearly demarcating "Advanced amphibian leaning" ventral fin bones and reducing carapace bony layers - LATE EARLY DEVONIAN (beginning of Catskill cycles with increasing embayment fetures both marine nd brackish.
I gave reference of a huuge compiltion of fossils presented by workers for over 100 years of plaeo reewrch. The book , called the "TREATIE OF INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, Is over 51 VOLUMES long with cler reference to thousands of ""Transitional" fossils from structure alone.
We have genetic"fossils" that even more closely track the relationships of transitional forms and their antecedents and daughter forms.

The genetic fossils are being considered for insertion into the treatise.

I'm not a scientist, but I do think that if we spend all that money training scientists, and letting them carry out research, we should at least listen to what they have to say.

Well, a buttload of cash is (sadly) forked out to theologians and religious apologists, too, despite the fact that they have consistently been unable to produce anything resembling evidence for their claims. I'd rather measure their success by the amount of evidence they provide, rather than the amount of money contributed to their cause. Produce evidence ot GTFO, I say.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution .. Well you can make up as many species you want if you are comparing brow ridges and cranial capacity.Homo sapien neanderthal is a "sub species" no one is claiming we came from them because they lived with us and european dna proves they mated with us.

But still NO transitional fossils!

Can someone say when we are going to see this?


I DO!!


NEVER


Because evolution is a hoax!

quahog rants:
You really are an idiot. Yes, that's an ad hominem. It is also completely accurate. Read the seriesw of posts in the previous page or two, quahog. WE HAVE ONCE AGAIN PRESENTED A SERIES OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS AND YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN ENTIRELY PAID ABSOLUTELY NO ATTENTION TO THAT INSIDPUTABLE FACT. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

And also HOW stable: genetically or morphologically?

Anyway, i think the deniers are referring to these cases--the right term seems to be 'evolutionary stasis':

Fossilized Nuclei and Chromosomes Reveal 180 Million Years of Genomic Stasis in Royal Ferns
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/343/6177/1376

Nothing in there pleads against evolution, of course. Just because some plants haven't evolved much since Trias doesn't mean other species have not evolved, new species have not appeared, or other species have not disappeared.

Precisely! What is still actively growing back are plants and insects that grow or return on grounds that have been destroyed totally by volcanoes like at Mount St Helens. This is the kind of recovery that's possible based on the surrounding environment, and it is all part of the evolutionary process.

I saw those examples while researching but i don't recall them being considered direct anscestors. I will look again. And i thank you for the reference to the treatie of invertebrate i saw some of it in college, i am gonna get my hands on it and let you know. I am going to my house in the catskills with no cell service so if i cant reply for a few days thats y. Thanks everybody for the constructive criticizism of my question. Have a good weekend. If i see bigfoot i will get some pics. Jk

pics, hell. get dna. a few hairs will be enough. (it's your duty to science)

wow, volcanic ash and volcanic brines sure lead to some real detail in those fossils. DOWN to the chromosomal level
.In Canada and US We call that a Lagerstatten , where we get such fine detail in preservation. The Burgess Shale is the best example.

Its actually the "Treatise on Invertebrate Paleo" (my typo re: "treatie" is just my bad habit).
Youre gonna get all 5o volumes??? Good Luck. We keep a reference set nd hve it cross sourced electronically, so when guys go into the field and need to do any correlations via fossils, they have the volumes needed.

@cicerone imposter, I get my education from books, you should try it instead of wikipedia. The fossil record shows species stay around for millions of years, many for hundreeds of million years. Like the ginko plant. There are many theories that use different terms to explain why the 99.9% of species that are extinct do not show up in the fossil record and why these intermediate species are not around for millions of years. If you like you can call it punctuated equilibrium, steady state, stasis, climax community, take your pick. I suggest you research cladogenesis and phylectic gradualism. Try not to rely on wiki. From page 203. To answer your question-1 million years and morphologically

That's all known by most people. It doesn't take "more reading" to understand these concepts.

If you wish to challenge Wiki, please show credible sources for your challenge that refutes any Wiki article.

As I've said many times, fossils are dependent on its genes and environment. Almost everybody have seen dinosaur fossils.

That some lived over 200 million years ago has proven that fossils do survive for very long periods. What's your point?

There are books and there are books... I got my education from biology professors and the best books in the trade. You read stuff written by pundits without a clue. Not the same.

There are unlimited numbers of books on paleontology that's impossible to cover all! Not during any one person's life time.

sonichell also doesn't seem to understand that we all have our own interests that occupies our time, and that includes reading fiction and nonfiction stories.

If he disagrees with any article on Wiki, he needs to provide a credible source(s) that refutes it. Otherwise, he's singing dixie.

Well, how do you know they are 'the best books"????
I have seen beautifull books with quit some nonsense and ugly strange books with enormous real wisdom in it.

I take it you judge a book by its cover, mate?

The last book you posted here was by a guy who thinks the earth cannot possibly be as old as 4.5 bl yrs, a young earth advocate. Is that 'enormous real wisdom'?

and remember, the same guy is really a proponent f a "Special evolution" (omething that Quahog had meekly admitted to many posts back).

"Its all epigenetic" he said.

I wonder whether Quahog even has one single clue?