Why do you use this argument? "Lack of transitional fossils" proves evolution wrong?

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the probability of fossilization. The probability of fossilization is investigated by taphonomists and geologists, who have concluded that it usually is very low. We are actually quite fortunate to have found fossil representatives of ANY of the major evolutionary... show more Evolutionary theory says nothing about the probability of fossilization. The probability of fossilization is investigated by taphonomists and geologists, who have concluded that it usually is very low. We are actually quite fortunate to have found fossil representatives of ANY of the major evolutionary transitions.
So considering the low probability of fossilization, the number of transitional forms that have been found is remarkable. To say that these fossils fail to establish evolution because there "should be more" would be akin to seeing the angel Gabriel descend from the sky and saying, "Well, that doesn't prove anything! I mean, where's Uriel?"
Update: I'm an atheist, btw.
Update 2: Too true.
What do you call the fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx?
Update 3: Im baaaack~ Yea, so? This is quite obviously directed at Creationists.
10 answers 10