evolution is wrong

You say in your fourth paragraph that "creatures lacking body parts almost never fossilize, so the further back we go, the sparser the record is. However, it is important not to forget that this is consistent with evolutionary theory: larger, harder, more structured body parts would be expected to come after smaller, simpler, softer ones in the fossil record, and this is what we find." This doesn't fit with your gap theory. If more complex creatures are more likely to create fossils, then why is there a gap. This gap would suggest that there were harder more complex creatures that left fossils, and then there were simpler, softer creatures that didn't leave fossils behind AFTER those complex creatures. Then all of a sudden there were complex creatures again that left fossils. How is that possible? Now for your example of a person jumping. Just because I couldn't see how high the person jumped doesn't mean i would jump to the conclusion that there was no gravity. But this is a bad example. In order for it to fit, the person who jumped would have to tell me how high they jumped. Did they jump? yes. How high? I don't know. I couldn't see it. Just as with gaps in the fossil record, is there a difference? Yes. Did they evolve? We don't know. We couldn't see it. In your first paragraph, you say that the gaps in the fossil record don't pose a threat to evolutionary theory. I disagree. Just because scientists don't assume that there will be a complete fossil record, doesn't mean there shouldn't be. In order for a person to claim something to be true, there has to be evidence to back that claim up. If scientists say that organisms evolved, there had better be evidence to back that up. When there is a gap in the fossil record, there is no evidence to back that up. We may see two different organisms, one before the time when we don't have a fossil record of and one after that same time, but this doesn't mean that the one evolved into the other. This is the "I jumped seven feet high" claim. And the only thing that needs to happen is the proof. Once it's proven, great. We'll end the debate, and I forfeit. But the gap stops that from happening. As for which gap I'm talking about, there are many. But if you want to specifically talk about one gap, then let's talk about Romer's Gap. This is the gap between organisms of the water becoming organisms of the land. It is a gap of what scientist's say is 20 to 30 million years. I of course disagree with an old earth theory, but that doesn't particularly matter in this debate. I do say that the archaeopteryx was flightless. You are right about that. But what you fail to address, is that I also said it was a flightless BIRD. Not a flightless reptile/bird. Scientists say that it was not a reptile at all. It was a flightless bird. Like our ostrich. Now granted, there are many differences between our ostrich and the archaeopteryx, but they are both flightless. That is what "much like our own ostrich" is referring to. It's ability to fly. You say "Why does that matter? Whether Archaeopteryx was flight-capable or not doesn't change its morphological features, just their functionality." In order for the archaeopteryx to be the "missing link" between reptiles and birds, it has to have the functionality of both. It can't just have the features of both. A reptile wouldn't evolve feathers just for fun. Feathers by themselves, would hinder a reptile. They wouldn't make it better. Evolution is based off of the strong surviving, and mutations that help the species out. If a reptile had feathers but couldn't fly, what good does it do that reptile? The functionality of the archaeopteryx's feathers is just as important if not more important than the morphological significance. So it can't be the missing link between birds and reptiles. Like I already said, it was just a flightless bird. Not even a little reptile. So there's another gap we can talk about. The gap between flightless organisms, and flying organisms.