Summations Only

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/5/838.full

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

If there were a transitional species for each and every genetic advancement, that would be proof of evolution.
That's not the case. The species don't progress little bit by little bit, but remain constant over long periods, and are abruptly replaced.

Here's a challenge, pick any modern species.

Now go and find at least one individual transitional organism for each beneficial mutation that changed said species into it's current form.

That would prove evolution beyond a doubt, over 100 years later, we're still waiting to be shown the missing links.

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

I do not know whether or not there was a creator, I was merely asking why, if one did exist, it could not create life forms in this hierarchical way.

And planting fossils? Seriously? Don't try pigeonhole me as some idiot bible basher, I'm not claiming god buried the fossils to trick us! The fossils could just be older creations.

And why must it be in one moment of creation?

Why wouldn't it create something, observe, modify, etc. Over long periods of time, why do you assume the creation must all be in 'one moment'.

Regards, aristotle

I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this.

Anyone who says different is immediately labeled 'ignorant' (see above), reminds me a lot of religion.

Yes you lot seem to have trouble with definitions, as I recall, Darwin could not even precisely define the word 'species'.

Again, you can only retrospectively assume that to be the truth. This has never been known to happen, a mutation has never added information to the genome, it's not that easy.

'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record. Don't try using it on me, won't work.

One of the predictions for the theory is that the evidence (transitional species) will not be found, so the evidence is that their is no evidence! It's truly ludicrous.

According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time.

Therefore, I expect to see one organism for each genetic variation that lead to the organism's current form.

If there is not an organism linking each and every genetic advancement to it's predecessor, how can we be sure saltations did not take place?

Regards, aristotle

So you agree that evolution cannot be proved to be true?

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

Evolution has never been observed to happen anywhere, and cannot explain complex biological systems.

Not the Nautilus. If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now.

And by 'most evolved' I simply meant that they had the more desirable characteristics, compared to those individuals who did not survive.

So wouldn't it follow that the best at reproducing would reproduce?

That is not natural selection leading to the evolution of the organism. That is the inherent ability in the organism to adapt to it's surroundings. We now know that populations have their own equilibrium mechanisms, and are not just kept in check by the random stimuli of surroundings.

How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means?

So you claim, but all that DNA is, is information. If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.

Again there was no information from your page about the plankton fossils that convinced me that there were different species, they all looked very similar.

Whether it is or not, you didn't answer the question of why there aren't the transitionals you'd expect to see.

Oh really? You can go back in time and observe each transitional generation?

Well that is really something.

Not at all

Not at all

Right, so you agree that the theory of evolution cannot be proved.

I did learn something: how dogmatically you lot cling to your theories