evolution is wrong

Neither evolutionary biology nor geology predict that fossilization will occur at a consistent rate throughout the whole history of life. Fossilization is an exceedingly rare occurrence; to expect it to occur with absolute regularity is like expecting a meteor to strike a specific place on the Earth every 1,358 years. Nature is simply not that consistent. We expect the overwhelming majority of species to not be fossilized: if this weren't the case, there'd be so many fossils that you literally couldn't turn over any rock without seeing one. Because the circumstances that lead to fossilization require such precise, unusual environmental conditions, and must coincide so perfectly with an organism's death (else it'll decompose too quickly), there are a variety of ecological factors that can make one period of time have less fossils than another. None of this, however, has anything to do with the theory of evolution per se: it has more to do with geology than biology. Evolution makes a grand total of zero predictions about how many fossils we will find; all it predicts is that when we do find fossils, they will tend to show sequential variation over time (e.g., we won't find fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian). "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." - Exactly. And just as you wouldn't assume that gravity stops working as soon as you don't observe an instance of it, you also shouldn't assume that evolution stops working as soon as you don't observe an instance of it. The biological process of evolution is at work constantly, on a very small and gradual scale, all around us: whenever a person inherits a parent's traits, whenever a person differs in minor ways from their parents, and whenever a certain group of people has traits that let them outcompete another group, that is evolution. Heredity, variation, and selection: that's all that's really needed. So, since we always observe this in the world around us, on every scale from bacteria to plants to fruit flies to dogs to humans, we have no reason to assume that evolution suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, simply "stops" as soon as we look away. "I don't know. I couldn't see it." - You miss the point of the analogy. The point wasn't that you trust that the person jumped even though you couldn't see it; the point was that you trust that _gravity persisted_ even though you couldn't see an instance of its effects. In the same way, there is no reason to doubt that evolution occurs (i.e., that species inherit traits, that those traits vary, and that some traits are more beneficial for organisms than others) just because we can't see every single example of its effects in every period in history. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, no? "Did they evolve? We don't know. We couldn't see it." - Nor do we know that gravity was operational at that time. Yet, lacking a reason to think that it wasn't, it is safe to assume that gravity and evolution persisted during this time. Are you familiar with the scientific principle of uniformitarianism? When you wake up in the morning, you assume gravity persists until you receive evidence to the contrary; you don't skeptically wait until you have proof of it every single morning. "Just because scientists don't assume that there will be a complete fossil record, doesn't mean there shouldn't be." - Um, in this case, that's exactly what it means. Explain to me why, exactly, there should be a complete fossil record? Why would the natural world care about fossilization enough to provide us with such a flawless record? "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." - Correct. And there is. http://www.talkorigins.org... "But the gap stops that from happening." - Why? You have yet to explain why the gaps are a problem for evolutionary theory. Gaps don't provide evidence that evolution isn't occurring; all they do is _fail_ to provide us with evidence of _how_ evolution is occurring. In the jumping analogy, not seeing someone jump doesn't provide evidence against gravity; all it does is _fail_ to provide us with evidence of _how_ gravity is influencing the jump. "I also said it was a flightless BIRD." - And I did not dispute that. It was a bird. Of course, since all birds are, in a sense, dinosaurs, it was also a dinosaur: modern biologists consider birds to be members of the Maniraptora grouping of dinosaurs. In the last 11 years, 17 species of feathered dinosaurs have been discovered. If you get your biology information from scientists rather than from Jurassic Park, for example, you'll be aware that Velociraptor was quite small and had developed wings: see http://en.wikipedia.org... Indeed, biologists consider Archaeopteryx to be more similar to small theropod dinosaurs than to modern birds: like deinonychosaurs, and unlike modern birds, it has sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, hyperextensible second toes, a long bony tail, and many other dinosaurian skeletal features. Its classification as a bird is arbitrary, since biologists could just as easily have narrowed the clade's scope and said that they were non-avian dinosaurs ancestral to birds, rather than some of the earliest birds. Its relationship to other species is the same either way. "In order for the archaeopteryx to be the "missing link" between reptiles and birds, it has to have the functionality of both." - No, it doesn't. When has anyone ever said that? For something to be a "missing link", it has to have features of both groups; it doesn't have to be perfectly functional in every respect for both, which would obviously be impossible. Creationists have often argued that bird wings could not have evolved, because, after all, "what use is half a wing?" Well, the Archaeopteryx answers that question: "half a wing" is extremely useful, for gliding purposes. "It can't just have the features of both." - Um... wrong. That's the _definition_ of a transitional species. Features are what species inherit, and thus are all that matters to identify evolutionary links; functionalities are, in a sense, just a side-effect of those features. "A reptile wouldn't evolve feathers just for fun." - Correct. Fortunately, there is an obvious benefit to having feathers even without wings (which is why even flightless birds like ostriches still have feathers): insulation. Various dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors, evolved primitive feathers for the same reason that various mammal-like reptiles, such as Cynodonts, evolved primitive fur: to keep warm. "Feathers by themselves, would hinder a reptile. They wouldn't make it better." - How would they hinder it? Do feathers hinder ostriches? Does hair hinder humans? Do whiskers hinder cats? You assume too much. "The functionality of the archaeopteryx's feathers is just as important if not more important than the morphological significance." - Not for determining that Archaeopteryx is transitional between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Rather, its importance is only for determining what selective pressures caused the earliest birds to evolve from flightless species like Archaeopteryx. Since we have found dinosaur fossils with feathers but without wings, this shows that feathers predate wings and must have had a separate functionality from flight (thermoregulation being the most obvious candidate, though perhaps not the only one--other possible uses include for display, sexual selection, covering nests while brooding, or added speed and thrust in running up inclined slopes). Likewise, since Archaeopteryx has feathers and wings, but could not fly, this shows that both feathers and wings could evolve gradually even before true flight was possible for primitive birds: both assisted in gliding.