Mark S. Whorton (
23 Jan 1995 15:15:05 GMT

In article <>, (Vance Maverick) writes:
|> In article <3fv7ps$> (Mark S. Whorton) writes:
|> > What is intriguing to me is that proponents of biological evolution
|> > fail to see the glaring deficiencies in their theories to which you
|> > have alluded. Namely, if there are no clear boundaries betweeen species,
|> > then why does the fossil record show such distinct boundaries.
|> Because it's an irregular and *extremely sparse* sample of all the
|> animals that have ever lived. (Also, as I'll say again below, it's not
|> generally thought that all populations everywhere are at all times "on
|> their way" to some new form.) What do you think are the chances that
|> a given animal will be fossilized after death?
Yes Vance, but doesn't it seem odd that there are no clear transitional
species in the fossil record? It seems that if darwin were correct, that
the transitional would be the norm in the fossil record since there would
be numerous intermediate species for each *distinct* species (now everyone
doesn't need to jump on what do I mean by distinct -- you know what I mean).

I know that this is a standard complaint against darwinian evolution and
some will tell their sophmore students to respond, but as a scientist, the
simplest theory that agrees with the observed evidence is usually the correct

Thanks for your response, Mark.