Do fossils disprove evolution?

University libraries full of scientific journals. Large museums full of fossils etc. University research laboratories where relevant experiments are conducted. Biology/evolution textbooks. The web (search for non-creationist sites).Next question?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You asked: Perhaps my reply was a bit short, but truly, there is evidence in quantity for this.Large-scale evolution is made up of small-scale changes, what creationists often refer to as micro-evolution. Given some time and selection pressure, those small changes add up, and before long you have what is commonly called macro-evolution. There is no mechanism known to prevent those small changes from adding up to macro-evolution, given the time and pressure to do so.Your post refers to "how to generate significant new information to a Genome." There is no requirement for "new" information, although that is often the case. Evolution is change, which can be increased complexity or even loss of complexity. Or just change.And there really is a lot of information in those dusty stacks in the university libraries. Not all of it by far is yet available on the web.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, this has been observed in ring species (among other places). A ring species is a group or related organisms, each slightly differing from the next, arranged in a ring around some geographic feature.Each group can interbreed with the adjacent groups, but the species at the endpoints of the ring can't interbreed with one another--the definition of a species. These ring species have the added advantage of preserving all of the intermediate species (transitionals) intact for study.If we can observe speciation (macro-evolution) in contemporaneous populations, why do you assume it is impossible given millions of years? Been there: six years of graduate school.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Most?And the rest are what?Face it, biologists and other scientists have evidence of beneficial mutations, and creationists simply refuse to acknowledge that evidence because of religious reasons.Believe what you like, but don't claim its science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.