1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Esquilax]

If that were true, how would a simple slug evolve into an intricately complex mammal? Just google "adding information to genome" and you'll find this to be a scientific fact.

Below this you acknowledge that mutations occur. It's... it's that. That's what does it. You know mutations can accumulate, right? You don't have to give up one the moment your lineage develops another.

Okay, technically microevolution can occur with mutations also. Micro refers to change "below the level of species" while macro refers to change "at or above the level of species." In other words, Macro requires speciation to occur. And while micro can work without mutations, macro must have mutations in order to develop more complex life and allow speciation. I don't know what you're saying about natural selection and mutations. They are quite independent of each other. Natural selection takes the current gene pool and eliminates parts of it. Mutations modify the gene pool, which is grown through gene duplication.

Natural selection selects for those mutations that confer advantages to the individual organisms. Over time, lots and lots of time, those mutations build up, accumulating within the genetic line, one by one, little by little. That's how you get one species out of a different species; by denying "macro" evolution what you're really saying is that you agree small changes can occur, but that enough small changes will never equal larger ones. It's absurd.

We have a lot of extinct species. Similarity still doesn't imply causality. Supposition. This is a black-and-white issue here. Either you know the fossils are transitional or you don't.

We know the fossils are transitional because we aren't just working with the fossils. Like I say, we also have a slew of other data through multiple scientific disciplines all converging on the same answer. How is it a supposition when every other piece of data confirms the conclusions one might make regarding the fossils?

Just the fact that Evolution is a 'theory' indicates that it contains some presuppositions. I don't know why you are so up-in-arms about this reality.

Because you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently you also don't know what a theory is, in a scientific context. So allow me to educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_%28science%29

Does that help?

And thanks for making my job easy. I refer to a past thread (feel free to read): https://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-p...+Tiktaalik

You can find explanations for their debunking all over the internet, but the gist is this: The Archaeopteryx has since been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles.

So? It was always going to be one or the other, you're never going to find a creature that's exactly halfway between a bird and a reptile. That's not what evolution is, because the change is always gradual. What makes Archaeopteryx transitional is not its classification, but the features it has in common with both dinosaurs and birds.

Oh, and you're simply flat out wrong about the conclusions that real scientists have made, anyway. Here, check it out: [url] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bi...teryx.html[/url]

One year after the Tiktaalik's pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.

Once again, you're ignoring the conclusions of scientists in order to twist discoveries to fit your preconceptions. Do you know what actual scientists have to say about these older footprints? Well, here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary..._tiktaalik

Look for the news update from June 2010, at the bottom of the page. In short, while those additional footprints certainly contradict Tiktaalik's place as the earliest transitional tetrapod, they do not mean that Tiktaalik is a fake, or didn't evolve, or is not a transitional form. All they mean is that tetrapod evolution could have occurred even earlier than the scientists had predicted upon finding Tikltaalik (using, by the way, the predictive methods prescribed by evolution in order to find a fossil of the exact morphology they wanted, in the correct stratographic layer.)

I don't know whether you just didn't bother to research this stuff, or if you're just flat out lying to try and prove your point, but this is paper thin stuff you're presenting, here.