What about the DNA evidence?

[HitchSlap]

If evolution takes millions or billions of years how can it benefit scientists who don't live long enough to observe this change and are reduced to speculating over what might have happened.

Like Christians who have to speculate what might have happened two thousand years ago?

 

[sfs]

If evolution takes millions or billions of years how can it benefit scientists who don't live long enough to observe this change and are reduced to speculating over what might have happened.

It takes millions of years for large changes to take place, but evolution is going on all the time, changing species. Some of the short-term changes are important to us: evolving viruses, evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, evolution of immunity in humans, evolution of metabolic traits in humans that may now be causing diseases like diabetes in our changed environment. What strategy should we adopt in malaria eradication efforts, given our understanding of evolutionary biology? (A critical question, because malaria will develop resistance to our drugs, and mosquitos will develop resistance to our pesticides.)

Understanding the long-term process is also important in all kinds of ways. Comparing species' genomes lets us identify the functional elements in the genome, since they are conserved while the rest is free to mutate. It lets us estimate the mutation rate and the contribution of different kinds of mutations. It tells us how old transposable DNA in our genome is, and how mutation rates differ for the X and Y chromosome.

The same principles apply to understanding cancer, since cancer cells are evolving very quickly and effectively.

 

[sfs]

Why dont we see evolution at work now.

I don't know about you, but I see evolution working all over the place. We can (and do) track changing genomes in real time in things like viruses and malaria. We can easily see how natural selection has changed our own species in a variety of ways in just the last few thousand years.

If a reptile grew wings or a a dog grew webbed feet and the fins why dont we see the beginnings of wings in anything. Not complete wings as they have to start somewhere they just dont pop out overnight. We see a duck with web feet is that going to turn into a fish one day.

Ever seen a flying squirrel, with incomplete but still functional wings? Ever see an otter or a seal?

The creatures that they say evolved into whales are shown with web feet. How did scientist decide they had web feet when all they had was bones. Did they assume this because it had some similar features. If so that is no proof that is an assumption.

Some parts of reconstructions are indeed assumptions, and reconstructions often change as new facts are learned. I'm pretty sure no scientist has ever claimed to know everything. What's your point? Some things we know, some we guess about.

 

[stevevw]

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.


Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

"I read a story about science being able to experiment with the fly DNA and they can make flies have eyes on its legs ect. But they have never made a fly anything else but a fly. This is simply playing around with the flies own genetics and putting its own body parts in other places. But they use this as proof that species can change into other species through the genetics. This just shows the amazing ability that a species can change into many forms and shapes."

Does this happen by chance now come on.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know about you, but I see evolution working all over the place. We can (and do) track changing genomes in real time in things like viruses and malaria. We can easily see how natural selection has changed our own species in a variety of ways in just the last few thousand years.

But how do you know that is not just variation with the same species which might have more variety than we think. Scientist no fully knowing yet have made some of these variations new species.

Ever seen a flying squirrel, with incomplete but still functional wings? Ever see an otter or a seal?

But i thought a flying squirrel had a sort of skin and fur that allows it to glide. I'm not sure of the anatomy but i dont think they have wings. Their limbs are simply stretched out and the skin and fur allows them to glide. Wings are different and have modifies limbs that can be used to have continued and elevated flight.

Some parts of reconstructions are indeed assumptions, and reconstructions often change as new facts are learned. I'm pretty sure no scientist has ever claimed to know everything. What's your point? Some things we know, some we guess about.

I think that some can fall into a form of faith or assumption and that can become truth in that when they find new discoveries they have already decided that it must go in that place or be the transitional link. When you consider that some of this is taught in schools and held up to the public as the next big proof and lately we have seen some of those discoveries come into question its a pretty shaky foundation to say that this new bone or fossil is a transitional until further proof. As the genetic proof is becoming more known we are starting to see some contradictory results with what they have said belonged in its certain position. Are not the genetics bringing up some unusual results that are yet to be explained. You can say that evolution is true but are they not assuming a lot with what we are starting to know now.

So what you are saying is evolutionist have got it right, Its just a matter of where the physical evidence fits. As the genetic evidence comes out it should mostly fit the model that evolution has already made.

Sorry if my grammar is not the best.

 

[[serious]]

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.


Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

"I read a story about science being able to experiment with the fly DNA and they can make flies have eyes on its legs ect. But they have never made a fly anything else but a fly. This is simply playing around with the flies own genetics and putting its own body parts in other places. But they use this as proof that species can change into other species through the genetics. This just shows the amazing ability that a species can change into many forms and shapes."

Does this happen by chance now come on.

You should put quotes in quotes. This is like the third time there has been an issue with failing to identify other people's work.

To respond generally to your cut and paste, the site author lacks even a rudimentary understanding of evolution. The concept of nested hierarchies from common descent supports the idea that a fruitfly can only evolve into a different type of fruitfly. Likewise humans are still just apes, apes are still just primates, primates are still just mammals, mammals are still just tetrapods, tetrapods are still just vertebrates, vertebrates are still just eukaryotes. Things evolve into subgroups of the groups they are in.

 

[stevevw]

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.


Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

"I read a story about science being able to experiment with the fly DNA and they can make flies have eyes on its legs ect. But they have never made a fly anything else but a fly. This is simply playing around with the flies own genetics and putting its own body parts in other places. But they use this as proof that species can change into other species through the genetics. This just shows the amazing ability that a species can change into many forms and shapes."

Does this happen by chance now come on.[/quote]

 

[USincognito]

No. Try again. Also, don't quote giant walls of text. A little bit is fine.

 

[stevevw]

You should put quotes in quotes. This is like the third time there has been an issue with failing to identify other people's work.

To respond generally to your cut and paste, the site author lacks even a rudimentary understanding of evolution. The concept of nested hierarchies from common descent supports the idea that a fruitfly can only evolve into a different type of fruitfly. Likewise humans are still just apes, apes are still just primates, primates are still just mammals, mammals are still just tetrapods, tetrapods are still just vertebrates, vertebrates are still just eukaryotes. Things evolve into subgroups of the groups they are in.

I thought i was. When i reference someone elses work i put a link and if i say anything i either put it in quotes or put quote marks around it. Sometimes it doesn't allow you to save so you have to leave the end one unquoted and then i put my own quote mark around it. If it is within the rest of the conversation the quote marks on the avatar work but not at the end.

I sometimes have to cut and paste, the same as what others do on this forum. It can explain the point better than I. I will understand the basic concept but cannot explain the detail as good as the writer. You say he doesn't have an understanding of evolution but i think what he says makes sense and fits in with other information i have read. I will have to look into cross breading but if there are thousands of bacteria that are present today and they are not to dis - similar to what life evolved from then surely we would see something going on.

Surely part of the theory would be seen showing organisms genetic makeup transforming into something else. I agree there maybe a form of evolution happening within species. This transformation may be beyond what we think it is capable of. But to transform one species to another, im not that has been shown through tests and breeding.

 

[mzungu]

I sometimes have to cut and paste as what others do on this forum as it can explain the point better than I. I will understand the basic concept but cannot explain the detail as good as the writer. You say he doesn't have an understanding of evolution but i think what he says makes sense and fits in with other information i have read.

You admit you have little knowledge of evolution yet you consider your opinions on it to be sound based on someone's personal opinions who is not qualified either.

You do realise that anyone who can refute ToE will not only receive the Nobel prize but will be known as the greatest scientist that ever lived! Which scientist in the world will ever pass such an opportunity?

You are judging something that you know nothing about and "it makes sense" is not a scientific term! Science does not depend on such notions. Science depends on falsification, evidence, accurate predictions, etc.

 

[Black Akuma]

You say he doesn't have an understanding of evolution but i think what he says makes sense and fits in with other information i have read

If all you read about medicine is homeopathy, things written by homeopathic 'doctors' will make a lot of sense. That doesn't mean homeopathy is valid.

You should stop reading quote-mined trash from creationists like the one you're quoting, who do no actual research, no actual effort, and instead simply pick apart the articles from people of whom they're unfit to lick the boots of. Actually go to places where you can read what actual scientists are saying on these matters - not dishonest cretins with agendas.

 

[stevevw]

You admit you have little knowledge of evolution yet you consider your opinions on it to be sound based on someone's personal opinions who is not qualified either.

You do realise that anyone who can refute ToE will not only receive the Nobel prize but will be known as the greatest scientist that ever lived! Which scientist in the world will ever pass such an opportunity?

You are judging something that you know nothing about and "it makes sense" is not a scientific term! Science does not depend on such notions. Science depends on falsification, evidence, accurate predictions, etc.

I have a fairly good knowledge of the theory and have had others say i am pretty close in my explanations. What i dont understand so well is the genetics. As i have said in the past it is the genetics that can really prove one way or the other. You can have some individual interpretation with fossils and using similarities in bone shapes and the anatomy. You could also apply this to creation as these similarities may only be great variation within the same species.

Genetics is black and white and it can't be fudged. Unfortunately i dont understand it to well. I have some basic understandings and i have to rely on what others say. As some have said on here some of the information can be wrong or misleading. But there have been some unusual results which dont fit in with natural selection. I have posted some of these before like epigenetics. The study into cross breeding is another.

The fact that genetics is a very complicated process and evolution relies on mutations with a process that seems to have many checks and balances to get everything right. The fact that more complex life forms come partly from chance and what really seems like an error in the passing of genes to the next generation. They have found with the tests they have done with genetics on some species so far that they may not belong in that line or branch that evolutionist put them in. They have never seen evolution in motion transforming into another species. Maybe in the future they will have to take out lines and branches of the tree. This begins to create bigger gaps.

I may say sometimes that it seems to me, or it looks like on face value that something seems that way. Thats because people who are lay people will see it that way. The simple idea of one creature forming into another should have each looking like they come from each other. But some of the lines they have built when you get into the detail there is no real solid proof. This may only be variation within a species. The genetics is placing some animals in places that look like they dont belong. Or at least thats what i have read. Thats why i have included links to animals such as the bat and platypus. Thats why i have included sites that say they have found some odd results with the genetics.

If the theory is true then the genetics should match fairly closely the tree that has been made by the fossil record, bones and anatomy that scientist have used. If we start to see contradictory evidence that is placing some these in places where they shouldn't fit then the theory starts to be questioned. This may not say that the theory is completely wrong and may need revising but it also edges a little closer to maybe individual design and creation. If more gaps are created and it starts to get harder to believe that a species had such large jumps when transforming.

The wolf dog turning into a whale is a good example. Here we have a creature the size of a dog which turned into a whale. First off the size alone makes you think that it would have to have many many transformations. But they only show 5 or 6 animals as its transitions. I would have thought there would be 100s.

Then you have to believe that the dog creature grew the right features it needed without really knowing it needed them. Through that process of creating beneficial mutations "which are basically an error in the copying of the genes" the right change was taken on and it became the dominate feature by the group over time. But a transformation that is useless will not be taken on. A sonar capability that protrudes from the head as a physical dome had to have a reason to develop in the first place. That need or reason had to be known by the genes. But evolution says that eventually through time all the right circumstance fall into place and it transforms. That to me would take many many repeated times and vast amounts of time. And that is just for one link to the next not the complete transformation. What came first the dome or the sonar. How does a part dome or sonar be taken on when it is useless. If a part dome or sonar was needed what was its use. And all this has to happen over and over again and as i said with the dog to whale it seems like it has to happen many times. Then it has to get it right and have every time in what seems like part chance and an error in the copying of the genes that have many checks and balances to get it right.

When you consider this with the dog to whale and they only show 1/2 a dozen transitions it implies some big jumps. When you consider they cant do any tests and that the connections are up to interpretation to a degree i think it gets harder to have confidence in. Now some of the genetics is bringing into questions some of the transitions they have put forward as well. Therefore some of the links in the tree may become gaps. Personally i dont think the picture that some have painted and the way it fits all together in the tree of life is reliable. It maybe also be that they have made some fossils and similarities into a separate species when it was just great variation with in species. Anyway the genetics will be what really tells the story as it is not up to opinion but is there in black and white.

 

[USincognito]

The wolf dog turning into a whale is a good example.

That never happened, and not for the reasons you might think.

 

[stevevw]

I thought the more famous land animal was the pakicetids. That was followed by 1/2 a dozen transitions that are named. They transformed into what is known as modern whales today. I think the ambulocetidae and Protocetidae were about double the size of pakicetids which was about 5 feet long. The line then branched out to form dolphins and baleen whales. But the Line from pakicetids to the first modern whales is about 1/2 dozen species.

It doesn't matter for what reason they may have wanted to change. It just seems like there are big jumps for the pakicetids to become a whale. Im not sure that the pakicetids can have its genetic makeup changed so drastically from that to say the ambulocetidae in one go. So there would have to be other links found to at least account for the size change which is doubled.

I thought a species changed its genetic makeup so that it then morphed into the shape and features that became the next link. This was done by part chance. Though im not sure if some say that the need to live a certain way like dive for fish affected the genetics and helped this along. From what i understand its more random so this will have to happen many times because its a complicated process. There are many check's and balances to get it right.

Eventually the right adaptation is taken on as it proves beneficial and filters through the group and becomes the common trait. But is the change large enough to be taken on so that it is not rejected. Small flippers or fins would not be beneficial they would be useless. So that implies big changes like having legs turn into a workable fin in just about one go. This is almost giving the process an intelligent quality as it knows that the organism needs this and changes it.

So because there are only A certain amount of transitions shown for whale evolution from land it is hard to believe that there weren't more transitions to fill in the big gaps that seem apparent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

 

[[serious]]

IYou say he doesn't have an understanding of evolution but i think what he says makes sense and fits in with other information i have read. I will have to look into cross breading but if there are thousands of bacteria that are present today and they are not to dis - similar to what life evolved from then surely we would see something going on.

This is actually exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. the page is nonsense, well written and seemingly meaningful nonsense, but nonsense none the less. Modern bacteria bear little resemblance to early life and we do see profound changes in bacterial populations. I'll write more about this this afternoon, running out of time to post.

Surely part of the theory would be seen showing organisms genetic makeup transforming into something else. I agree there maybe a form of evolution happening within species. This transformation may be beyond what we think it is capable of. But to transform one species to another, im not that has been shown through tests and breeding.

Not at all. Let's say we have a moth that evolves to look and behave much like a fruitfly, to the point that it can even be mistaken for a fruitfly. has the moth evolved into a fruitfly? No, of course not. The moth just evolved similar features. It might be vastly, even profoundly different from all other moths but it is still a moth. when moths evolved as a subset of then extant species, they were still insects. Insects likewise don't turn into arachnids. Insects, when they first evolved, were still a subset of arthropods. If something is part of a cladistic group, the theory would say that all decendants of that species, no matter how changed they are or how many splits they undergo, will still be part of that cladistic group specifically BECAUSE they evolved from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why dont we see evolution at work now.

We do see it working now. For example, humans are evolving a new hemoglobin allele (hemoglobin C) that reduces the severity of malaria, and it doesn't cause the severe cases of sickle cell anemia associated with the hemoglobin S allele. The hemoglobin C allele is expected to replace the S allele in some areas due to natural selection.

"Epidemiological studies of genetic differences in disease susceptibility often estimate the relative risks (RR) of different genotypes. Here I provide an approach to calculate the relative fitnesses of different genotypes based on RR data so that population genetic approaches may be utilized with these data. Using recent RR data on human haemoglobin beta genotypes from Burkina Faso, this approach is used to predict changes in the frequency of the haemoglobin sickle-cell S and C alleles. Overall, it generally appears that allele C will quickly replace the S allele in malarial environments. Explicit population genetic predictions suggest that this replacement may occur within the next 50 generations in Burkina Faso."
Estimation of relative fitnesses from relative r... [J Evol Biol. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

And that is just in humans. There are a ton of other examples in other species.

If a reptile grew wings or a a dog grew webbed feet and the fins why dont we see the beginnings of wings in anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

But there have been some unusual results which dont fit in with natural selection. I have posted some of these before like epigenetics.

Epigenetics fits in just fine. Phenotypic plasticity is not a problem for evolution.

The study into cross breeding is another.

Why is this a problem?

The fact that genetics is a very complicated process and evolution relies on mutations with a process that seems to have many checks and balances to get everything right.

Doesn't change the fact that each human is born with about 50 mutations. They have sequenced the genome of a family, and were able to count those mutations by comparing the child's DNA to that of both parents.

J.B.S. Haldane proposed in 1947 that the male germline may be more mutagenic than the female germline1. Diverse studies have supported Haldane's contention of a higher average mutation rate in the male germline in a variety of mammals, including humans2, 3. Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived. Most strikingly, in one family, we observed that 92% of germline DNMs were from the paternal germline, whereas, in contrast, in the other family, 64% of DNMs were from the maternal germline. These observations suggest considerable variation in mutation rates within and between families.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html
​

They have never seen evolution in motion transforming into another species.

We have many examples of speciation in action.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Maybe in the future they will have to take out lines and branches of the tree.

And then put them back in. All species are related. The only question is about the finer points of those relationships.

The simple idea of one creature forming into another should have each looking like they come from each other. But some of the lines they have built when you get into the detail there is no real solid proof.

The only problem is that you will not accept anything as evidence for evolution. It doesn't matter what features a fossil has, or what genetic markers two species share. You will just ignore the data and stick to your dogmatic beliefs.

If I am wrong, then answer these two questions.

1. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

2. What shared genetic markers would you need to see in order to accept that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

If the theory is true then the genetics should match fairly closely the tree that has been made by the fossil record,

It does. Here is the tree produced by a comparison of ape genomes, including humans.

As expected, we are the chimps closest relatives outside of bonobos. There are more differences between the chimp and gorilla genome than there is between the human and chimp genome. I always find it interesting that creationists have no problem claiming that orangutans, gorillas, and chimps are variations of apes when there is more variation between those species than there is between chimps and humans.

If we start to see contradictory evidence that is placing some these in places where they shouldn't fit then the theory starts to be questioned. This may not say that the theory is completely wrong and may need revising but it also edges a little closer to maybe individual design and creation.

How is it edging closer to individual design and creation? At one time we thought the world was flat, then we concluded that the Earth was a sphere. One day we found that the Earth was not a perfect sphere, but did that mean we had to return to a flat Earth? No. We found that the Earth was an oblate spheroid, not a perfect sphere. That is the type of refinement occuring within the theory of evolution now.

If more gaps are created and it starts to get harder to believe that a species had such large jumps when transforming.

The gaps for hominids are being filled all of the time, and yet you reject the fossil evidence.

The wolf dog turning into a whale is a good example.

It is a perfect example of creationist denial. At one time we only had one transitional whale fossil. "A-ha", said the creationists, "There are two gaps that need filling". We found another transitional fossil, and what did the creationists say? "A-ha, you now have 3 gaps to fill". With every new transitional fossil we create two gaps on either side of that fossil. Using creationist logic, every time we find a transitional fossil we disprove evolution because we create more gaps. This is how illogical creationism is.

When you consider this with the dog to whale and they only show 1/2 a dozen transitions it implies some big jumps.

It implies no such thing.

 

[mzungu]

This is actually exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. the page is nonsense, well written and seemingly meaningful nonsense, but nonsense none the less. Modern bacteria bear little resemblance to early life and we do see profound changes in bacterial populations. I'll write more about this this afternoon, running out of time to post.
Not at all. Let's say we have a moth that evolves to look and behave much like a fruitfly, to the point that it can even be mistaken for a fruitfly. has the moth evolved into a fruitfly? No, of course not. The moth just evolved similar features. It might be vastly, even profoundly different from all other moths but it is still a moth. when moths evolved as a subset of then extant species, they were still insects. Insects likewise don't turn into arachnids. Insects, when they first evolved, were still a subset of arthropods. If something is part of a cladistic group, the theory would say that all decendants of that species, no matter how changed they are or how many splits they undergo, will still be part of that cladistic group specifically BECAUSE they evolved from it.

In nature Function Dictates Form:A case in point: Hummingbird moths not only look like hummingbirds but they eat the same food and fly the exact same way:

 

[stevevw]

We do see it working now. For example, humans are evolving a new hemoglobin allele (hemoglobin C) that reduces the severity of malaria, and it doesn't cause the severe cases of sickle cell anemia associated with the hemoglobin S allele. The hemoglobin C allele is expected to replace the S allele in some areas due to natural selection.

"Epidemiological studies of genetic differences in disease susceptibility often estimate the relative risks (RR) of different genotypes. Here I provide an approach to calculate the relative fitnesses of different genotypes based on RR data so that population genetic approaches may be utilized with these data. Using recent RR data on human haemoglobin beta genotypes from Burkina Faso, this approach is used to predict changes in the frequency of the haemoglobin sickle-cell S and C alleles. Overall, it generally appears that allele C will quickly replace the S allele in malarial environments. Explicit population genetic predictions suggest that this replacement may occur within the next 50 generations in Burkina Faso."
Estimation of relative fitnesses from relative r... [J Evol Biol. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

And that is just in humans. There are a ton of other examples in other species.

I think just a truth seeker has already answered this for you. That only show variation with a species.
"However, the creation of entirely new functional DNA-sequences constituting new genes and new gene reaction chains for novel synorganized anatomical structures and/or physiological functions has never been achieved by induced random mutations in plants or animals.

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf

The flying squirrel has not got wings. This is flaps of skin and fur which are held out by the squirrels limbs. The limbs are still limbs and not wings. It cannot flap or use those gliding aids to go higher. Poor example, there has never been a creature showing the beginnings of wings.

Besides How did it get the flaps of skin. Did they one day suddenly appear or did they gradually appear. If they gradually appeared then at one stage there would have been half as much flap that was on its way to being fully functional. Of what benefit would half a flap be. It couldn't be used for flying and would just be a flabby bit of excess skin hanging at the sides of the creature.

 

[Black Akuma]

Of what benefit would half a flap be

Even with half a flap, it could still jump further than other squirrels with no flap. It has advantage, so the trait is selected for. Not a massive advantage, but enough that squirrels with half a flap is going to survive more often than one with no or less of one.

Your problem is that you draw a weird distinction - either something is fully functional the at it currently is, or it's useless. That's not the way it works. As long as the feature gives some advantage, it's going to be preferred.