Tldr: Charles Darwin told me in The Origin of The Species. Gradual, by the very definition of the word, means slow. We gradually age. Rocks are gradually eroded by wind and water. A tree gradually matures from a seedling into a mature tree.
Something cannot be gradual and fast at the same time. That is a logical contradiction. It's like saying a square circle exists. The fact that you claim something can be gradual and fast at the same time is ridiculous, especially when talking about a process that by it's very nature takes thousands of generations to occur. Micro-evolution can happen rather quickly, but we are speaking about macro-evolution. You don't just evolve entire new body systems in the geological blink of an eye.
Also, the speed of the process would have no effect on the appearance of transitional fossils. If those transitional species actually existed they would die and leave fossils just like anything else. The speed at which they evolved wouldn't make them exempt from death or the fossilization process.
Once again, all the current evidence refutes the theory of gradual evolution and points strongly and convincingly towards purposeful design by a creator.
Gradual means incremental, and fast and slow are all relative. That which takes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years is both slow or fast, gradual or rapid, entire based on it's context.
If your argument is Darwin is wrong because it isn't ALWAYS 'slow' then fine, no one cares. Darwin was wrong about a ton of things. Evolution isn't married to Darwin's description of it.
If those transitional species actually existed they would die and leave fossils just like anything else
It's a numbers game. If you're looking for something that existed in small relative numbers for a short period of time it's going to be overwhelmed by species that have established themselves in greater numbers in those same layers.
Transitional fossils are nice, but you're asking the impossible to demand those in an explosion. "Sure, we have transitional fossils for all sorts of other cases... but you don't have them for this that or the other things, checkmate" ... WRONG
all the current evidence refutes the theory of gradual evolution and points strongly and convincingly towards purposeful design by a creator.
That's an outright lie. There is zero evidence. Demanding x or else it must not be so isn't "evidence". Provide one piece of evidence that argues against evolution.
Tldr: Charles Darwin told me in The Origin of The Species. Gradual, by the very definition of the word, means slow. We gradually age. Rocks are gradually eroded by wind and water. A tree gradually matures from a seedling into a mature tree.
Something cannot be gradual and fast at the same time. That is a logical contradiction. It's like saying a square circle exists. The fact that you claim something can be gradual and fast at the same time is ridiculous, especially when talking about a process that by it's very nature takes thousands of generations to occur. Micro-evolution can happen rather quickly, but we are speaking about macro-evolution. You don't just evolve entire new body systems in the geological blink of an eye.
Also, the speed of the process would have no effect on the appearance of transitional fossils. If those transitional species actually existed they would die and leave fossils just like anything else. The speed at which they evolved wouldn't make them exempt from death or the fossilization process.
Once again, all the current evidence refutes the theory of gradual evolution and points strongly and convincingly towards purposeful design by a creator.
Gradual means incremental, and fast and slow are all relative. That which takes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years is both slow or fast, gradual or rapid, entire based on it's context.
If your argument is Darwin is wrong because it isn't ALWAYS 'slow' then fine, no one cares. Darwin was wrong about a ton of things. Evolution isn't married to Darwin's description of it.
If those transitional species actually existed they would die and leave fossils just like anything else
It's a numbers game. If you're looking for something that existed in small relative numbers for a short period of time it's going to be overwhelmed by species that have established themselves in greater numbers in those same layers.
Transitional fossils are nice, but you're asking the impossible to demand those in an explosion. "Sure, we have transitional fossils for all sorts of other cases... but you don't have them for this that or the other things, checkmate" ... WRONG
That's an outright lie. There is zero evidence. Demanding x or else it must not be so isn't "evidence". Provide one piece of evidence that argues against evolution.