Evolution has impossibilities and contradicitions.

I was only beginning. Forgive me for making so called irrelevant statements about evolution, but it is my perspective and, at least the professors and students I have talked with, that evolution does, in a way, teach spontaneous generation. Whether or not this objection is held by less in the biological community, is strongly disregarded. I make basis for an argument against evolution because of its absurdity and because, for some at least, evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Wasn't that the goal of Darwin's book, "Origin of Species", to explain exactly what said title suggests? Darwin did, indeed, devote some, but little effort, for the origin of life. His main goal it seems, was to explain how the diversities of life arose, but not how it got here. I believed that was part of what I was debating, the origin of species. However, the above doesn't matter, for my main arguments are here in this round. Argument #2- The Cambrian Explosion I believe that we find, according to Paleontologists, the deepest layer of the Earth that we find life, in the Cambrian. These are the earliest fossils we find, fully formed and fully functional. The main suggestion against evolution here is the fact that there are no transitional fossils found here. Now, for evolution to be true, these life forms must have been developed over millions of years of time with entirely random mutations accumulating to form these complex creatures. With that, we must also find transitional and intermediate fossils showing the progression of evolution, perhaps gradualistic(we are not debating Punctuated Equilibrium). Whichever process, gradualistic or not, these fully developed forms haven't the slightest evidence for stages of an evolutionary process. They are just there, turned up from out of nowhere it seems. "Scientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today."(http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...) "Chinese scientists at Chengjiang have made a new discovery, the Yunnanzoon, a chordate.(7) The Phylum Chordata is the most complex animal group of all and includes fish and mammals. So the chordates were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory. "Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; it was complex and diverse right at the beginning. This contradiction between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory falsifies the theory. The evidence from the Cambrian explosion is that evolution simply cannot be true."(http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...) ((Might I also add: If I am not mistaken, evolution teaches that life started out simplistic and then became complex.)) "This early complexity and diversity should not have occurred if life slowly developed from some kind of simple beginning, as evolutionary theory predicts."(http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...) "Even George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution had to admit, "In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." Argument #3-Where's the Evidence? Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitiions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. We might as well quit looking for them."(http://why-the-bible.com...) Dr. Louis T. Moore, Professor of Paleontology, Princeton University, an evolutionist "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." "The evidence from paleontology is for discontinuity; only by faith and imagination is there continuity of variation." A common "proof" for evolution is the Peppered Moths experiment. To summarize it, "It has been claimed that before the Industrial Revolution, most peppered moths were light because they were well camouflaged when resting on tree trunks. The dark moths were rare. When the Industrial Revolution made the tree trunks sooty, the dark moths became more abundant. Since stricter pollution controls have cleaned up the environment, the light moths are more abundant again. At least, that's the story."(reference on bottom, #2) "The Field Museum should tell its visitors that both dark and light varieties of peppered moths existed in Britain before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, the Industrial Revolution did not cause any new varieties to evolve. Both varieties were present to begin with. Even if a new variety had evolved, that would have had nothing to do with the evolution of a new species. If the black peppered moths had evolved into dragon flies that ate soot, then there would have been some evidence of evolution. But that isn't what happened. Light and dark peppered moths "evolved" into light and dark peppered moths. In other words, nothing happened."( reference on bottom. #2) Common "proofs for evolution" later found to be hoaxes. Piltdown man, Nebraska man,and some other. Argument #4- Example of missing link(Bird evolution=Where is the evidence?) I have read many an article on bird evolution and they just don't add up. Where is the evidence for evolution of feathers? Where is the forgotten ancestor of the bird? "A literature review on the evolution of bird feathers showed that even though feathers are found back as far as the Cretaceous, including many well-preserved samples in amber, the fossil record reveals a complete absence of evidence for feather evolution."(reference #3) All birds (class Aves), and no other animals, have feathers.(Bock, W.J., Explanatory history of the origin of feathers, American Zoology 40:478–485, 2000.)(website is number 3) "The common assumption that birds do not preserve well because of their hollow bones is incorrect. They actually preserve very well in certain environments, especially lacustrine (lake) environments, inland water habitats and marine areas. As a result, bird fossils are common."(# Davis, P. and Dyke, G., Birds; in: The Encyclopedia of Paleontology, Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago, p. 162, 1999. # Davis, P. and Briggs, D., The fossilization of feathers, Geology 23(9):783–786, 1995)(website is #3) BTW- if Pro wants to argue about Archaeopteryx as an intermediate, I have a good argument against it. Fossil Record doesn't confirm the evolution of feathers, major problem. "What is found consistently in the fossil record is fully developed scales, feathers that are fully feathers, and skin that is clearly skin. No transitional structures consisting of feathers that are part feather and part scale, or even feathers that are less than modern types, have ever been uncovered."(Stahl, B.J., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, New York, p. 350, 1985)(website is #3) "Attempts by Darwinists to hypothesize how feathers could have evolved have produced ‘a morass of contradictory theories and muddy thinking'."(Parkes, K., Speculations on the origin of feathers, Living Bird 5:77–86, 1966 pg. 77) (Flight requires not only the evolution of feathers, but also a total redesign of almost the entire animal.)(website #3) References: 2. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org... 3.http://www.answersingenesis.org... 4.