1) This is only because of the nature of fossilization. there has been much geological process during the time that fossils have been in the ground. many have been destroyed. even still, it is very rare that conditions are met to preserve a skeletal remain as a fossil, especially for as long as a lot of the fossils that have been found. this means that the fossil record only shows a tiny percentage of the total number of organisms that lived on this planet. and the appearance that they suddenly came into existence is largely due to geological processes at the time (such as a volcano melting remains, or a glacier picking them up and moving them or destroying them altogether).AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: 1) Actually quite false. Fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis, it does not show gradual change over time.
2) Design fits the evidence you present in #2, so it's not evidence for evolution quite.
3) Isn't this quite possibly an argument from ignorance? And circular reasoning?
4) The hip bones are required for reproduction...this is utter nonsense once again.
5) Blah blah blah this is nonsense again. My goodness, I keep on seeing this junk.
2) granted, but evolution is based on a concept we can see in the real world. creationism is a concept that is completely man-made (well, at least there is no evidence of it being otherwise).
3) never seemed to stop you before. but seriously, it does make more sense from an evolutionary perspective. what is the reasoning behind creating such a creature?
4) absolute garbage. hip-bones are not required for reproduction. when was the last time you saw a jellyfish with hip-bones. or a fly? or a shark? once again, it is your words that are nonsense. do you even try anymore?
5) 'Blah blah blah this is nonsense again. My goodness, I keep on seeing this junk.'