Show me where Dawkins addresses defined constants and where he actually discusses relativity vs. quantum physics and you have shown me why I am wrong.
Just because I do not accept evolutionary biology does not mean I do not understand evolutionary biology. The Origin of Species is based on observed speciation that was extrapolated to a theoretical explanation for reptiles evolving to mammals and birds. As to your transitional fossils, all you can show is that fossils existed not how they "evolved".
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that
the actual ancestor can't be identified.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... .html#fish
Now, where are your transitional fossils?
What is bankrupt is your appeal to assumptions, theories, and faith in a concept that requires one ignore evolutionary biology cannot identify ancestors of fossil teeth. I will repeat there is no scientific evidence that a reptile "evolved" into a mammal or a bird.