>>13648843I see that in my absence, the goalposts were moved form
>evolution is a mythto
>well maybe microevolution exists BUT MACROEVOLUTION DEFINITELY IS A MYTHSome would consider moving goalposts as arguing in bad faith, but I choose instead to see it as progress, because I'm a generous guy like that
First of all, you are mistaken that macroevolution should show in the fossil record, because it's not about gradual mutation, but rather about instraspecific evolution as a whole - evolution not applied to organisms, but to ecosystems.
You want the fossil records to show proof of macroevolution, how about this: the fact they are fucking fossil demonstrates that whole species failed to adapt to their environment (or were wiped out by a sudden change, like a big honkin meteor) and, collectively, died
Besides, there are numerous "missing link" fossils, as well as fossils and records of species that still exist today but showed different shapes. To see any kind of gradual change would require for every single individual that ever existed to be fossilized, dug up and studied. But fossilization is a rare event, most skeletons just decompose.
But hey, sure, species were intelligently design to survive and never got outcompeted or driven to extinction in the history of life. Just ask the sabertooth tiger and the dodo.
>>13648794For evolution to drive a specie to extinction, it requires significant pressure.
Sharks and coel exist in one of the most resource-rich environments on Earth. In the ocean, they just have to swim with their mouth open and they feed.
There's no reason one specie should outcompete the other to extinction.
For another example: lions and hyena both are big pack predators, buth live in the savannah, both hunt for the same kind of prey and steal carcassess off each other, and both kill each other's youngs when they get the change.
Yet, we still have lions and hyenas. How come? Maybe because there's prey and living space enough for both.
