ON "NOW LIVE THERE ARE THINGS THAT NO FOSSIL REMAINS"
This punto, en realidad es el único de los cuatro, que a primera vista puede tener alguna relación con una prueba de la evolución de las especies. Y tampoco es la única deducción coherente, ni siquiera la más plausible. Veamos: Si no hay restos fósiles de muchos de los seres vivos actuales puede ser por dos motivos: a) Estos seres vivos no existían en un pasado geológico; y b) Si existían, pero no encontramos restos fósiles de ellos.
Analicemos estas dos posibilidades:
1. Sencillamente existe la posibilidad de que no haya restos fósiles en épocas geológicas antiguas de algunos seres vivos de los que existen en la actualidad, simplemente porque no existían en aquella época. Pero this has not necessarily understood in the sense that if there is not that evolved from others that if they lived then.
At this point it is impossible to move forward without making a precision of a philosophical nature, as the interpretation given to this point, always has its roots in a decision of faith, even for those who try to defend that argument only from science.
For those who believe there is a primary cause of the existence of living beings, we accept that living things were created, we can not accept that the fossil remains of some living things in the geological past can be simply that had not been created yet since there is no obstacle scientific, philosophical or theological view that preventing the creation was staggered.
On the other hand, those who believe that there is no first cause and that life is the result of "chance", since it is not permissible spontaneous generation now, "need to believe that life arose at a certain point, with an atmosphere different from now, what has already been sufficiently debunked.
[i] also need to believe that living things have come from other existing before them no where else?. So, I understand that with regard to this point, it is a matter of needing to believe in evolution, by no means a scientific conclusion, since it can not be demonstrated in any way that living things come from other than current and past them in time.
So that at this point, we find ourselves faced with the comment of Stanley Jaki Benedictine monk, quoted by Cardinal Schönborn: "The biggest problem of the Darwinists claim there is no end, is as follows: the purposeless evolutionary process of course comes as the end result to be, the man who does everything with a purpose. As evolutionists deny the existence of an end, with one goal: their goal is what you want materialism, certainly, this is not a science, is an anti-metaphysical. "
[ii] 
2. If we consider the possibility that actual living beings exist in the geological past, but found their fossil remains, this may be due to one or more of these reasons:
1 - The sites where these fossils are not preserved or have been are too buried. If you take seriously that: orogenic processes buried continental sediments, leaving the surface rocks of marine origin, that the continental sediments are only 1% of all sedimentary rocks formed, and that the processes of regional metamorphism destroyed most fossils, we can understand that there is a possibility real elevada, de que conforme nos remontamos atrás en el tiempo geológico, sea exponencialmente más difícil encontrar sedimentos fosilíferos continentales, independientemente de qué seres vivos existieran entonces. Por lo que el no encontrar sus restos fósiles, no permite afirmar con certeza que un ser vivo no existía en una época geológica determinada.
2 –. Todavía no hemos encontrado esos fósiles. Continuamente estamos presenciando como nuevos hallazgos remontan hacia atrás la presencia de algunos seres vivos en la tierra, como ejemplos de esto, podemos citar:
· el descubrimiento en Diciembre del 2.003 de restos de canguros, koalas y comadrejas en China en los primeros niveles Cretaceous, 50 ma. Older than that so far admitted.
[iii] • A Canadian team, consisting of Dave Rudkin, Graham Young, Godfrey Nowlan and others, has found a horseshoe crab fossil in the Ordovician rocks of northern Manitoba (Canada) 445 million years old. The fossil Lunataspis have called aurora, meaning literally "crescent moon shield of the dawn" in reference to its shape. Although it is more primitive than their modern descendants and his likeness is undeniable traces its 100 m length. more than was thought until this discovery.
[iv] • And also Silvina Valais in 2008 described a site of footprints in Patagonia, in rocks at the base of the Triassic, in which there are three types of footprints of birds and a type of mammal tracks. Which traces the origin of birds from the Middle Jurassic to the base of the Triassic, about 70 ma.
[v] is a mistake to say that one species, a family or phylum appeared in a geological epoch. That is a fact always provisional. And only reach some level of credibility when carrying out a comprehensive inventory of sites of earlier times by their lithology, sedimentary environment and conservation status, could contain such fossils, not contain.
3 - As we do not know the morphological variability of the species, we can easily conclude erroneously that a small morphological change indicates a distinct species. This is certainly what happens with the "evolutionary series" of species that have been built for example with horses and pigs in Neogene sediments of the Great Lakes area of \u200b\u200bAfrica.
As we see that even in this point you can argue that the evolution of the species is the only consistent position. Will be the only consistent position if one accepts uncritically the paradigm "scientifically correct." We have seen that the only possibility can be deduced from this point lies in a need to believe it has been.
[i] - Sanvisens, Alejandro "The whole truth about evolution" - Edit. Promotions and university publications - 1,996. pg - 185 ss.
- Abelson, PH Proc. Nat Acad. Sci, 55, 1365 to 1966.
- Gish, Duane T. "Theories about the origin of life: a critique" Edit. Clie - 1985, pg. 31.
- Shapiro, Robert (1,986): "Origins" p. 103 - Edit. Salvat - Barcelona.
- Canuto, VM, JS Levine, TR Augustsson, CL Imhoff (1982): Nature, 296, p. 816.
- Pfug HD, and Jaeschyke-Boyer, H., "Combined structural and chemical analysis of the microfossils of 3,800 years", Nature (1979) p. 280:483.
- Gish, DT, op. cit. p. 31 - 32.
- Carver, JH, "Atmospheric oxygen levels prebiotics" Nature, 1981, 292: 136
- Walker, JCG, "New evaluation of the role of oxygen and ultraviolet light in Precambrian evolution, Nature 1976, 264: 620 -624.
- Maynard Smith, John: "The problems of biology." Edit. Chair, Col Theorem, 1,987, p. 176.
- Gerald F. Joyce - "RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life Nature - 338, p. 217-224, 1989
- Thaxton, Charles. "DNA, Desing and Origins of Life" - 1,986
- Cairns-Smith, AG 1990. "Seven clues to the origin of life." Madrid, Edit. Alianza Editorial. p. 81ss.
- Johnson, Phillip E. "Darwin on Trial" Edit. Homolegens - 2,007, p. 125 ff.
[ii] Card. Christoph Schönborn - "Case or Disegno? Evoluzione e creazione secondo a federation ragíonevole "domenicano Bologna Studio Editions 2007. pag - 153.
[iii] -
www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2003/12/12/ciencia/1071195388.html [iv] - Dave Rudkin, Graham Young, Godfrey Nowlan - February 13, 2008
[v] - De Valais, Silvina - Central Library Univ Buenos Aires Faculty of Natural Sciences Thesis 4247.
2. There are many species still living in ancient times but now some strains are more common than those that have prevailed in other geological eras. Specific criteria in paleontology is very delicate, if not useless, if anything, should be used with caution. In paleontology, you can only recognize shapes, and leaving aside the few remaining in which they appear fossilized remains or marks of the soft parts of organisms, the fossil record can be grouped into three types: the remains or shells or molds external structures, internal skeletal remains, and traces or signs of life. In the first type, seashells or external structures, the morphological changes seen in the consistent and continuous geological series can be explained well by: a) - lateral overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, in situations of transgression or regression. And b) minimum chemical changes in the environment, as tested and Chabry Pouchet, D'Arcy Thompson and others. [iv] Among other things, demonstrated that foraminifera of a species, reacting to minor changes in the alkalinity of the medium, building shells "own" other species of foraminifera. In the case of skeletal remains of vertebrates, we are in a very similar situation, to say that the fossil remains of a lizard (for example), belonged to an individual of a different species to species of lizards living in Currently, it is essential first serious study with extensive sampling of the morphological variability each of the parts of the skeletons of dinosaurs living species, which has not been done. And secondly, you can not define a species with a small fragment of a skeleton, it is more, when you look at the findings of remains of vertebrates, especially dinosaurs, that only lived on earth a specimen of each species, it repeatedly, each finding is assigned to a new species, different from the current and unlike any fossils found so far. We must put a lot of evolutionary unbiased order in vertebrate paleontology, and even have to start seriously assessing the critical importance of environmental physicochemical conditions and other epigenetic factors in phenotypic expression of a dominant variety, or a size in living in a given geological period. So until they determine with relative certainty the ability of morphological variability of a species, this second point, one can not obtain any evidence for evolution of species. 
3. The ancient species have disappeared from the fossil record because they have evolved to more modern species. This is the opportunity that is accepted by supporters of the evolutionary paradigm, but if this is what happened in Earth's history, paleontology observe something other than what is in strata. Let's see: a) All evolutionists, regardless of the evolutionary mechanism that advocate, understand that it is one or a small number of individuals who differ on the specific model and gives rise to a new species. If this is what has happened, the fossil record would be full of intermediate forms, rather, would be difficult to follow a specific form in time. This is not so, the forms appear stable for long geological time (with due caution in estimating geological time). b) As shown in the fossil record is a stable and suddenly from one stratum to the next, it disappears like that and there is a new, not always similar to previous the evolutionary idea, it should add to the possibility that some individuals suddenly acquire a new form, the need for instant termination of all individuals who have maintained the previous form. And this is not that have happened once, but it is the mechanism in each new variation. c) is a research question which of Eldredge and Gould on the series of Trilobites and punctuated equilibrium, [v] do not include analytical references the saline composition of sediments and sedimentary structures smallest, since the result of their research is more concerned with the overlap of adjacent sedimentary environments, which play a continuous synchronized "monsters viable" and simultaneous extinction. So this third section also provides no evidence that species have evolved from other species, this third point is an unsupported idea paleontology. 
One of those amazing encounters one who gives this city. Then I will tell more about your environment, in these blogs. 
