Is Darwin dead...

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, I don't get it.
It's fact that the fossil record has not supported Darwins claims, history shows that, I'm not just saying it with no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
godBoy, you are being a bad boy here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
For the last 150 years, evry evidence has bee supportive of Drawin theory. Furthermore, completely independent disciplines have ope the way to further test in ways unepected evn by Darwin. DNA technology for instance. The research is accelerating constantly to the point where there are more and more confirmations, a real avalanche of them, in fact.

Only the least educated person, or the most brainwashed, could still hang on to anything that purport to discredit the theory.

Again Darwin does notnegte the possibility of a god, just that evolution can be explained in scientific terms. ID, on the other hand, to cover the insecurity of theits, tries to pass itself of as science to support the weakening creationist notion. ID, is a subterfge, a cheat, by ignorant, one-sided mind, or luddites type, people. It has no prerogative, no usefulness, and is just a danger if it could ever gain a foot hold in the scientific community which it has no chance of doing, imo, since that would be so retrograde as to stretch the concept of human stupidity beyond the possible.

[tolbiny]

Umm yeah you are-
there is plenty of evidence of intemediary steps within the fossil record. Darwin didn't say that you had to find everyone to be true, he said that if NONE wer found then he was likely wrong.
Additionally evolutions as a thoery has been refined by new evidence- firstly the concept of punctuated equilibrium which allows for large scale changes to happen over relatively short periods of time. Secondly computer simulations (amuong other evidence) have shown that complexorgans do not have to go through all intermediary steps to finish at such an advangted stage.