Evolution doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal. As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle.

---

Amp,you have fallen victim to one of the creationists silliest misrepresentations of evolution around. The best known example of this that I know of is the crocoduck. This is such a woeful twisting of the facts that I thought it was a parody at first. It is so wrong that it has become a joke amongst evolutionists around the world. I will attempt here to show you why...Evolution doesn't claim that catfish become seagulls at all. This would be akin to me telling a christian that if Jesus rose from the dead than he must be a zombie. It is entirely misrepresenting the concept.What it does claim is that catfish and seagulls have a common ancestor way back in their history. This would be like finding out that you and I share an ancestor a hundred generations back. This would not mean that we are particularly closely related or even be considered of the same race. Cousins of cousins about seven or so generations down aren't closely related enough for this to be considered inbreeding.In the same fashion, somewhere down the track, the common ancestor of both the seagull and the catfish produced at least two successful offspring. One of those is an early ancestor of the catfish and one is the ancestor of the seagull. Although they are very slightly different, neither of these creatures looks anything like a catfish or a seagull or would be likely to be mistaken for one. They certainly wouldn't be different enough from each other to be considered different species.This is a serious oversimplification of the way it works but it's good enough as an example.If you want to find an example of the first ever mammal and had access to complete data on every individual in the line of descent (impossible), you'll have to split hairs at some point as to where the mammal has enough mammal features to be 'mammaly' enough to be a mammal. You can only hope to see this in hindsight. The first mammals wouldn't be looked at as different enough to be in a biological class of their own at the time. They would probably only be separated into a Genus or family of their own by contemporary biologists. These (imaginary) biologists wouldn't have seen a reptile suddenly turn into a mammal - they would have seen a population of synapsids with a few slight differences.

quote:

---

Pea, jawbreaker, golf ball, baseball, softball, kickball, basketball, beach ball. All round, each one is larger and more complex than the next, yet no one has ever seen a pea evolve into a jawbreaker.

---

Your ball example I have seen before and also misrepresents how evolution works. Although it might seem to be a good analogy, the crucial missing factor is reproduction. Balls do not beget balls, if you will. For your suggestion to be viable, the balls have to create copies of themselves i.e. procreation. If a golf ball is a better ball for some reason and this gives it a better chance of reproducing itself,, then the golf balls children are more likely to be better at being reproducing balls themselves as some of them will have inherited the same trait. Gradually, the population of balls may evolve into beach balls but only if the above facts are true.

quote:

---

DESCRIBE one of the millions of examples of one species evolving into a completely different species. Actually say the names of the animals and the records showing the evolution. Not lined up fossils but an actual recorded incident.

---

We cannot find examples of the things you are asking simply because they have died a long time ago and the changes happened over a great deal of time. If you study genealogy, would you demand to see your great, great, great grandmother alive before you accept that you are descended from her or that she even existed?There are many examples of these sequences in the fossil record as I'm sure you know if you have taken the time to look into it. One of my favourites which is rarely mentioned is psittacosaurus, which is an intermediate form between earlier ornithischians, similar in form to hysphilodont and the later ceratopsians like triceratops.I know you're going to say that these are just 'lined up fossils' but look at them. They are from the right times, the right places and we have excellent finds for all of them...

quote:

---

I am sure you will just insult me and remind me of the millions of examples no one wants to actually describe.

---

Others have already responded in their own way. I'll bet that not one of them will shy away from helping you understand all of this if you genuinely want to learn. So far, I haven't seen anyone insult you but you must understand that we have all been asked this before and been treated like the devils tricksters for trying to help - it's easy to get frustrated with willful ignorance. We would all hope that you are willing to actually listen rather than begin the evidence shell game that many creationists love to play. I agree with this entirely. Before you tell us what it is that is wrong about evolution, please be sure of your facts. If you ask, we will show you and have evidence to back it up. If you assert that everything we say is wrong and fail to provide a meaningful reason with back up, than you will deserve what you get.Attitude begets attitude but golf balls beget nothing.