Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.
Bs"d

That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

Jerry Allen Coyne (born 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate.

"Of Vice and Men, A Case Study of Evolutionary Psychology" By Jerry Allan Coyne

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology (schedelmeting) than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

The latest dead weight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."

The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.
That's what you say. And now what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about says about that:

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163



"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

As I said- you are an embarrassment.
The usual pattern; when people don't have arguments any more, they start name-calling.