[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural Selection is a fine concept. It's certainly true.

But Natural Selection... well it SELECTS, it does not create.

Natural Selection is quality control, it is not research & development.

Natural Selection, as mbillie said, does not prove evolution. In fact, the actual process of natural selection should be separated completely from the theory of evolution.

DNA is an amazing molecule, but it has limits. It cannot create a monkey out of blueprints for a turtle.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not trying to do so. Indeed there is no "tryer." And it doesn't do so overnight. Your statements don't make a lot of sense.

Evolution is indeed all about research and development. Different gene combinations are tried out, and things develop from the successes and failures alike. This is exactly what evolution does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we already know from your post in "What do you do to piss people off?" that you're just confrontational. But if you're going to sit there and tell me that Macro Evolution happened and just required lots of TIME. Then I say to you: Show me even a SINGLE transitional fossil and I'll shut up.

This has to be a fossil that hasn't already been proven (or admitted) to be a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many transitional fossils and your argument that there are none, is old and discredited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah? Well watermelons are actually blue on the inside until you pierce the skin.


PROOF MAN. You cannot just say "you're wrong, there are lots of transitional fossils." and move on. You need to either back up your claim with PROOF or take a hike.

I know there were a lot of so-called transitional fossils. To the best of my knowledge, every single one of them were proven to be either falsified or just mistakenly identified as something they were not.

Link me to just one. Just ONE transitional fossil and I'll gladly shut up.