Evolution is a Real Thing

Ouch... You never answered my points...Neo-Darwanism is based on lies in order to survive. How else would you explain the embarrassing bandwagons?‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ - Lewontin, R., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, p. 13, 22 October 1981"After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed." -Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p.I don't like games evolutionists play. So please do not avoid arguments. Thank you.I already mentioned the piltdown man, pepper moths, Ernst Haeckel's embryology.To show you how they are mocking our intelligence:Here is a picture of a biology book:http://i479.photobucket.com...It is a 2002 print:http://i479.photobucket.com...They are using Ernst Haeckel's embryology as proof!http://i479.photobucket.com...Better yet.They credited Micheal Richardson, the man who EXPOSED the scam, lol.An other example of how evolution fossils are a joke is the coelacanth fish.They believed that it is a transnational fossil, I mean look! It have two extra fins, and it it seems to be developing a brain and a primitive lungs, and it probably lived near the surface! It was extinct 70 millions years ago!But opps... the first one was caught in south Africa in 1938 the reason being that the fish does not rise above 180 meters below water surface, they found a tiny brain instead, and the "Deveoping lungs" were simply layers of fat.How do you explain living fossils that remained the same through millions of years?There is no single transnational fossil. I would like YOU to present evidence of their existence.Nobel prize winner Werner Arber 45 years of his life documenting the cumulative effects of mutations on thousands upon thousands of generations of single-cell organisms. He has found absolutely no mechanism that would enable a single-cell organism to evolve into a multi-cell organism.One common lie is that humans and chimps are 98.5% similar.If you look carefully, you will quickly notice something is off, Sibley and Ahlquist claimed that in 1987, but the human genome project finished in 2003.Sarich replicated the experiment and concluded that their research is completely unreliable. Is choosing to compare 30-40 amino acids from over 100000 amino acids look reliable to you? A nematode worm is 75% similar to humans, does this mean our bodies are similar to worms?Furthermore, a chicken's Y-chromosome is as close to humans as chimp's Y-chromosome.And if you want to point that the difference is 2 chromosomes, then know that potato have 46 chromosome like humans, so potato is our direct ancestor.Your singular argument is based on "microevolution", but a much more accurate term is "variation" or "traits". If you know basic Mendelian genetics, you would not preserve this as a proof of evolution."The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No." -R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883Danny Faulkner, a professor of Astronomy and Physics at South Carolina University, states that the finch beaks' fluctuations cannot represent evidence of evolution: "And so if you have supposed microevolution one direction and then later it reverts right back to where it started from, that's not evolution, it can't be." -Gailon Totheroh, "Evolution Outdated," 2001"the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth" -Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, pp. 82-87Microevolution have nothing to do with evolution since it is a closed circle that goes back and forth, theres no such thing as unlimited amount of traits, the amount is fixed and no new trait will emerge. I DARE you to prove me wrong.BTW, Darwin never conducted an experiment or even noticed their different beaks, nor did he discover the bird. So calling them Darwin's flinches is a myth.Evolution: Living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.You still did not remove the question marks that exist in this definition.Particularly, regarding the "HOW" questions.