Integrity of transitional fossils supporting marco-evolution?

[exchemist]

Apparently leopold thinks he's an insider?

Indeed. Normally in science, those with an "inside story" of some kind are happy to share it for the advancement of science (after publication to establish priority of course). His reluctance to do this suggests that whatever the "story" here is, it is not science.

 

[wellwisher]

Another consideration behind evolution is connected to ecosystems. An ecosystem is composed of plants, bacteria, bugs and animals all of which form a symbiosis. There is a cause and effect connection to achieve balance. In 1988 the Yellowstone National Park had a huge forest fire which disrupted the existing eco-system.

In less than a decade a entirely new ecosystem formed composed of smaller plants and critters that migrated in from adjacent areas. This migration would create gaps in animal fossils, since many animals were not there before the fire due to the system having so many large trees. This new eco-system formed in a very short time and did not need long periods of adaptation. The adaptation was developed elsewhere.

Darwin on Galapagos observed a very old eco-system that changed little in eons. But Yellowstone shows an eco-system with rapid change due to migration of seeds, birds, animals, plants in a very short time. Migration may not allow transitional fossils in yellowstone, since most of the transition occurred in different places, before the migration.

If this new hunting ground was better, and a species moves there, they may appear to have become extinct in the old location, but that would be an illusion due to them simply moving location. This type of change can be done in real time with experiments. I could bait a location for deer and lure an extinction of deer from another location and create a new place without transitional fossils. A pure evolutionists could be fooled into thinking this was along random process that took millions of years.

 

[Dinosaur]

From my post #6:

The facts of evolution cannot be disputed. The fossil record shows many examples of different but similar/related species. Two well known examples: The eohippus to modern horse & primate evolution resulting in modern Homo Sapiens. There are only two plausible explanations.

Darwinian evolution or some variant of it.

Deity-directed evolution. This suggests that the deity is a practical joker. He is amused by scientists following his contrived evidence supporting the erroneous notion of evolution. "Look, Gabriel, they took the bait!"​

I prefer the Darwinian explanation or some variant of it.

Does some anti-evolutionist have comments to make relating to the above?