Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

1) Con claims that traits are evidence for evolution and that they share unique characteristics to determine its nature. However, what Con does not realize is that those so-called fossils are quite controversial and ambiguous to the scientific community. Evolutionists maintain that the claws and teeth of such fossils such as Archaeopteryx suggest that it had been a reptile in the past. Actually, however, such characteristics of Archaeopteryx do not prove that it was the missing link between reptiles and birds. Consider that some modern birds have claws on their wings, and yet no one thinks of them as being missing links. The African bird known as Touraco has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin of South America when it is young. Both of these birds use their fully functional claws to grasp branches and climb trees. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it, too, has claws on each wing and can use them if attacked. Obviously, simply because a bird in the fossil record is discovered with claws on its wings does not mean that it is a transitional fossil. In 1993, Science News reported that an odd fossil bird had been unearthed in Mongolia. It supposedly is millions of years younger than Archaeopteryx and, interestingly, had teeth in its beak (Monasterky, 1993, 143:245). As with the claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists cannot prove that the presence of teeth make the animal something more than a bird. Interestingly, evolutionists seem to ignore the fact that "teeth & hair" can apply to various class of species. Con claims that only mammals have hair and fishes have gills to determine its nature. However, Con does not realize that birds can have hair too aside with the amphibians such as Salamanders (gills). http://en.wikipedia.org... http://animals.about.com... My opponent has to provide good reasons as to why traits in the fossil record should be considered evidence for evolution given the fact that those traits are not as unique as he thought it would be and can be especially ambiguous/misleading. 2) Con claims that I do not know the difference between micro and macro evolution. He is actually quite wrong for a few reasons and his explanation was just a rephrase for my apple-orange analogy. "Throughout most of the 20th century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution, which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970's, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years. This model of long term gradual change is usually referred to as gradualism or phyletic gradualism click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced. It is essentially the 19th century Darwinian idea that species evolve slowly at a more or less steady rate. A natural consequence of this sort of macroevolution would be the slow progressive change of one species into the next line." http://anthro.palomar.edu... 2) Con is confusing gradualism (slight genetic changes within a population) that processes every millions of years with macroevolution (slow progressive change of one species to the next) exactly as Darwinian Evolution predicts. Con needs to explain how exactly his misleading definition violates my definition of micro & macro or Darwinian Evolution. 3) Con claims that the supposed evolution of human species is evidence of ancestry. However, what opponent fails to realize is that such macro changes (if it was true) predicts (according to Charles Darwin himself) of in between transitions with many numerous modifications for every formation. "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin The fact that there are many missing links missing in human should be enough to cast doubt in evolution. I'm afraid my opponent would need to provide a really good reason to justify those ape fossils as evidence for evolution. 4) Opponent changed the subject from Darwinian evolution to general evolution. I'm not sure if he's red-herring, but it won't take him anywhere if he persists. P.S. I knew you lied. I just added more power sauce to my argument, hehe. Your turn, Con, if you can.