What i can't understand about evolution....

Hi integral, Not at all, in fact this was just released a few days ago,
We're Sorry - Scientific American

quote:

---

Scientist have been in the dark until now because all fossilized turtles previously discovered had complete shells. But this 220 million-year-old fossil is an ancestor of the modern turtle at a stage when its shell was still evolving.

​

The newly discovered species sported a shelled belly and a little extra bone on its spine, supporting the theory that turtles' shells formed over eons as their backbones and ribs grew. The main competing idea is that hard, bony plates in their skin (such as those in the skin of modern-day crocodiles) fused together.

​

The authors say that this turtle species probably lived in water and that their stomach shell kept them safe from predators below while they were swimming.

---

This article gives a clear example of how partially evolved turtles still found benefit from the evolving shell.As Deftil wrote, even half a wings, appendages, shells etc, can still be benefitial to the species to use in other functions.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

So, what happened to their beaks when there were no birds in existance...? I think what you mean to say is that you understand evolution by todays visible standards. In other words, you can see the variance in the species of today. What you seem to have trouble with is understanding that many of todays species weren't around 20Mya, 100Mya, 1Bya. So something occured right...?So what seems more plausable, small changes add up over time, or every so often a magic wand is waved and species just pop up? No one is "using" anything. And no one has given any reason for the existance of life, what evolution explains is the diversity found in the already existing organisms. You are the one confusing the issue. Yes but scientist do see it, and have documented it.Is your question, How did we get from fish to land mammals, or are you saying that no matter what evidence we present for the very, very long transition from fish to land mammal, you will not see it as good enough evidence...?It's important to establish your motive here...that way we can either help, or ignore, you. If someone told me that a fish gave birth to a land mammal I would dispute it too. In fact, so would science. The theory of evolution does not claim such a degree of variance in one single generation, and it's a complete lack of understaning of the theory if this is what you beleive is said. Yes but you admited that your knowledge of evolution is basic, so whatever "belief" you are under, is most likely wrong.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky