evidence against proof

”FIGURE 2.8

According to Darwinian theory, the strata beneath the Cambrian rocks should evidence many ancestral and intermediate forms. Such forms have not been found for the vast majority of animal phyla. These anticipated but missing forms are represented by the gray circles. Lines and dark circles depict fossilized representatives of phyla that have been found.”

It is true that darwin´s theory predicted transitional forms between ediacaran forms and cambrian, and it is true that lots of "gray dots" remain for the fossils that were never found. but Stephen, you fail to mention that all the time new fossil evidence is found, and each time when it is found, IT FITS DARWIN´S THEORY perfectly!!

and today, LOTS of fossils have been found. your claims were true in the 19th century! You do not lie, you use your expertise on history to say something that was true and let the reader think you spoke of the current situation. but you dont. it´s not true anymore, transitional forms have been found and thought not all transitionals forms will be ever found, there is enough evidence that proves Darwins theory without any doubt!

”Instead, completely unique organisms such as the bizarre arthropod Opabinia (see Fig. 2.9)—with its fifteen articulated body segments, twenty-eight gills, thirty flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system, and five separate eyes12—appear fully formed in the Cambrian strata along with representatives of other fundamentally different body plans and designs of equal complexity.”

No stephen No! it did not appear "Fully Formed" the first fossils found were fully formed.

ø Opabinia is an extinct stem-arthropod genus found in Cambrian fossil deposits. The only known species, O. regalis, is known from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale Lagerstätte ofBritish Columbia, Canada. Fewer than twenty good specimens have been described; 3 specimens of Opabinia are known from the Greater Phyllopod bed, where they comprise less than 0.1% of the community.^[1] Opabinia was a soft-bodied animal of modest size, and its segmented body had lobes along the sides and a fan-shaped tail. The head shows unusual features: five eyes, a mouth under the head and facing backwards, and a proboscis that probably passed food to the mouth. Opabinia probably lived on the seafloor, using the proboscis to seek out small, soft food.

First of all, the first major point is that it´s soft bodied! Ediacaran animals were soft bodied. this points to Ediacaran period, so if you compare these thesis: thesis one, it appeared suddenly, thesis two, it´s ediacaran survivor, which one is more likely?

Magical appearance naturally, "god did it"

We only have 20 specimen so we have to wait for more evidence or say frankly that we cannot find more about this animal. we cannot know everythin, that´s why we have to rely on theories and their predictions to fill in the gaps.

”Thus, unless Darwin’s evolutionary mechanism worked gradually by preserving the tiniest of random changes over many millions of years, it didn’t work at all.”

...No, I do not think Darwin meant exactly that. You just made that up yourself. 

”Darwin had hoped that later fossil discoveries would eventually eliminate what he regarded as the one outstanding anomaly associated with his theory.”

and discoveries found did prove it so Darwin can rest in piece.

yet not all scientists agree...

”paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and Jack Sepkoski note in their study of skeletonized marine invertebrates: “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. . . . The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”21”

indeed, Jack Sepkoski, a GEOLOGIST writes "Yet some scientists believe that the schizochroal eyes of some trilobites possessed the most sophisticated optical systems ever utilized by any organism (Levi-Setti, 1975). "

WTF?? you really think that those trilobites who´s eyes were constructed the way insect eyes are, were more advanced than Hawks?!! You really skipped biology classes.

I see the pattern Stephen C Meyer, you quote scientist who step outside their expertise, and only those. Or you quote mine experts and cut their sentences so they sound to say someting other than what they say.

It is becoming obvious that creationists hired a Philosopher to prove their point because a good philopher can prove anything, As stephen here. but evidence kills philosophical proofs every single time!

R.I.P critical thinking.