By the way it is nice to be actually talking some science for a change.
Whatever gets to breed, passes on it's traits. That is evolution. What keeps a form stable? There is no other force to maintain an animal in it's classic form. There is no platonic "ideal" of a particular animal form. Natural selection adapts living things to their environment, and causes branching and diversity of form. The DNA gets this information from error and mutation. When slight variations are better, they are preserved. The accumulation of this information leads to new structures like arms and legs.
Yes this is what I said for creation. This 'force' comes from the DNA , it tries to keep things the same and limits reproduction, to other types of animals. It does allow for variety. The DNA gets it's information from the instruction put into it in the first place. Now mutations are usually bad for the host. But mutations come from preexisting DNA ( instructions) This DNA has to come from somewhere first. So this is a problem from a single cell that has no DNA. It is an amazing thing that a cell can copy itself. Where did that come from? A cell is not that simple, it has parts to it, it can't evolve the parts, because before has the parts and is complete to survive, it is not alive. A catch 22 situation. There also is no DNA that can mutate. There is no heredity. Besides this cell doesn't know it has to survive. Where did this ability come from? Science does not know how life started and it doesn't know if this ability to copy itself, could happen on its own or was it created that way.
Now when you get into macroevolution, you also have a problem. If you have a whale with fins at the sides, and science says they eventually move more to the front ,by the head and turn into flippers. If this is caused by mutations , that gradually move this fins, the mutations would also be in the record, where the fins moved backwards, or up ,or to the bottom etc. You would also have to have mutations that changed the fins into flippers with all the transitional, errors that would cause.
This is not found in the fossil record. And to say that we don't have all the fossils to record this is not true. Because there should be more of these than the that are useful. Besides science has never seen this take place. We do see mutations, like extra arms on a human, even an extra head, and joined twins etc. But we don't see people with two heads starting a new race of humans. We should see all of these types or errors in all forms of life, now also. but there are none.
Science uses the idea that they look alike , but that doesn't mean one came from the other. A creator can use DNA and a just it a bit and get another slightly different creation. He can also take a cell and put the required information in the DNA.
DNA tries to keep things centered, it is only errors that cause mutations.
So science is going to have to show without their interference ( like experiments) that life can come from non life, and Evolution can actually happen. All science has right now are ideas, no actual evidence.
Appearance does not mean no evolution happened. We can find ancient ants in amber, and to the untrained eye, they look exactly like modern ones, but they are not. Everything evolves all the time, due to selection pressures from diseases and parasites, even if the outer form of the thing stays more or less the same.
Appearances does not mean evolution did happen. There are many bugs and plants and animals, and many are similar to each other. Many have become extinct.
Fossilization is so rare, that so far we only seem to have found one fossil octopus from that era. We would expect to eventually find more primitive octopi, but soft-bodied animals don't fossilize well. Transitional forms are all perfectly adapted to their environment, not "gross things" that don't work.
This is a big problem for science, because it is not the lack of fossils, it is the lack of the transitional fossils. They would have to have survived also to reproduce and pass on the mutations.So they all couldn't have died at birth. If they did then there would be no changes at all. The truth here is that science has not thought this through. There should be millions of these transitional fossils, and there would be all these transitional animals around to day. But this is exactly what you would expect from creation . Non of these transitional ones would exist. But the the completed ones with all four legs working under animal, with all the correct brain connections and wiring set up.
All animals are in transition, but the fact is most environmental niches are filled, and animals keep their lifestyles as long as conditions stay more or less the same. Changing size and color is evolution too. Over long periods of time, the change is dramatic. Over short periods of time, the change is less apparent. At one time, the primitive dog and the primitive bear were the same mammal. If creation were true, why are ancient animals so different from the ones we have now? Why, at one time, were there no birds, and now there are? Why at one time were there no flowering plants, but there are now?
Things would have to be created in proper arrangements.
The dinosaurs for example, were different than we have now. But there is a good reason for this.
The earth at one time was rock , water, and sand. The earth needed organic matter in the soil, so that things can grow. So thing would have been created to accomplish that. The animals kept the trees in check and spread their seeds , other animals would keep, the plants eating animals in check, and so on. All if a tree was created, it may have taken a thousand year for it to spread through the earth. There is a symbiotic relationships between plants and animals. Some of the biggest and deadly animals came before man and now, this was for cultivating the earth. Also this helped create the correct atmosphere for life.
Very primitive single celled creatures known as diatoms do have skeletons made from an adapted cell wall. The brains and hearts, and muscles had to evolve at the same time as the bones. The selection pressure that made this happen was like an arms race. Everything was trying to eat each other, so any slight advantage would be preserved. It's hard to grasp for some people, but it is elegantly simple, and it explains the fossil record in a way no other theory can.
[/QUOTE]
There is no advantage for uncompleted systems. Science is going to have to show that all these organs and the wiring and the bones all happened at the same time for any of this to be of use. How does evolution know where to place a thigh bone and the right shape and length and then make, a shin bone to fit it but not touch it, but use different materials to connect those bones, and then make muscle material and join those also and the wire them and then the brain know how to use , so a four legged animal can run in different gaits.
This is just impossible , and is the reason why science can't show that any of this happened, or could happen.
