>>13808825When I say "in what I've quoted", it means in your messages.
"It's a myth" isn't an argument and you talk about gradualism, without considering that gradualism is a detail in darwinism, a detail in competition with punctuated equilibrium.
Back to fossils, yes, they are an evidence that evolution is occuring, by the repartition of ancient species, the evolution of various parts of the body etc.
"No they are not" isn't an argument either. If you want to make such claim, you better provide a reason why it is not, because, so far, it's the same process at different scales, hence an artificial boundary.
In addition, you show a lack of understanding when you talk about "random changes", mutations are the only more or less random events occuring, yet darwinism is about natural selection, which isn't about randomness.
Once again, accepting µevolution but refusing macroevolution, like you call them, is logically incoherent; as much as saying that adding a plethora of grain of rice won't make a pile of rice, or several small streams can make a small river, but not a major river or a lake.
"Oh no, a study shows that they fail, so everything must be wrong". It doesn't work like that. Your own paper doesn't get to such conclusion, at all.
Why do you come with the "life's complexity" argument? It is not even the main topic of darwinism. Complexity is an inner topic that is obviously explained by the notion of competition added to physical & chemical conditions of the globe.
You sure need a better model if you come with nothing but thin air to refute a theory.
