Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

Thank you for clarifying your positions on the topics, or at least for trying to clarify. Also let me make it clear that Latin is not a problem for me (though your excessive use of the quote "Natura non facit saltum" has become a little irritating, especially because you take the quote a little out of context) As I understand it you are 1.making an ad hominem attack against Darwin, and an attack on the theory of Evolution, based on "man's frame by frame evolution (suggested by Darwin) has not yet been seen; only our punctuated equilibrium." ( by the way, "Natura non facit saltum" has ironically become a mantra in your arguments) 2.You also claim that a cell with a superfluous mutation would go extinct because of natural selection and that cells must have arose with their specific gene families already in place (no this is not phylogeny, this is an argument about abiogenesis. Also, I must point out that phylogeny has to do with the relative similarities and differences between phylums, and has little to do with the origins of DNA or any Genomic materials for that matter, merely the molecular and phenotypical relationships between species) Before I begin, I must point out that this: "Before one can talk about actual life, an organism needs a functional genetic code. Where are the correct DNA sequences supposed to have come from? And for genes to encode protein sequences, the necessary decoding machines must be present (polymerases, ribosomes, t-RNA, etc.). But these themselves consist of dozens of proteins and RNAs, whole origin demands the genetic code. Such a system cannot simply initiate and then improve itself little by little. The code consists of 64 "symbols", and all must be decodable from the very beginning or the system does not work."- your words from round 1 And this: "Before one can talk about actual life, an organism needs a functional genetic code. Where are the correct DNA sequences supposed to have come from? And for genes to encode protein sequences, the necessary decoding machines must be present (polymerases, ribosomes, t-RNA, etc.). But these themselves consist of dozens of proteins and RNAs, whole origin demands the genetic code. Such a system cannot simply initiate and then improve itself little by little. The code consists of 64 "symbols", and all must be decodable from the very beginning or the system does not work."- your argument from round 2 Are exactly the same. This worries me because neither are in quotes (which they should be if you were quoting yourself or anyone else). What worries me even more is that they came straight out of your second source (http://www.discovery.org...) which got me thinking what else you had plagiarized from various websites. I looked through your arguments, and sadly I found that you had copied many of them verbatim from your sources. I regard this not only a sad misrepresentation of your own intelligence, but also a direct insult to my own. I do find it ironic that you commented on my laziness when you do not even type out all of your own arguments. Also while on the topic of your sources, I must point out that the opinions of Joost van Steenis are in no way a platform for a debate. From now on please use your own words for all your arguments, or put the quoted section in quotes, as that is what they are for. Now to my arguments. 1.Before analyzing the current area our debate has moved into, I would like to establish the meaning of "Natura non facit Saltum". "natura non facit saltum" : nature makes no leap (1) The idea expressed here merely means that no animals appear randomly, completely ready for their life. That all life comes out of another life, not out of thin air. This is no more of than a dismissal of archaic abiogenesis. Remember that old school scientists as far back as Aristotle believed that animals spontaneously generated in decaying materials (2). Louis Pasteur finally put the theories of life from decay to rest in the early 1860s. Darwin was aware of this philosophy and had rejected it. Darwin was not a chainist either. Instead he was pointing out the gradations both in observable species and in geological evidence (3). One must realize that in the geological record we would obviously never find ever specimen of every species that ever lived, as decay can result in many different events happening. Most notably, decay hardly ever ends in the complete fossilization of a specimen. This is why your argument that not all "transitional forms" have been found yet is irrelevant. Furthermore, as I expressed in my argument in round 2, nature most certainly does not "jump" from one form of life to another. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) <- Evidence that evolution is a frame by frame process. Punctuated Equilibrium does not state that Evolution stops and starts randomly. It argues that in a larger population evolution happens slower or not at all, while in a small population, genetic variation happens quickly as mutations are more likely to be passed down to a great many offspring. Darwin would say that this is common sense, as the animals of the Galapagos Islands (Darwin's main inspiration) were a prime an example of punctuated equilibrium. Darwin was assuredly well aware that changes were much more rampant in small populations. 2.I agree that any non-beneficial mutation would probably result in the extinction of that different form, but a accidental genetic mutation which positively affected the organism would most certainly result in the passing on of that gene, especially in asexual reproduction. Remember that the mutation only has to be a few nucleotides long to have an effect on the whole organism. Also remember that your source happens to be great at rationalizing their unchanging belief in Intelligent design. An area regarded by most as a pseudoscience. Citations (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)Balme, D. M. (1962). "Development of Biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus: Theory of Spontaneous Generation". Phronesis: A journal for Ancient Philosophy 7 (1–2): 91–104 (3)http://scienceblogs.com... (4) http://chem.tufts.edu... (5) http://www.talkorigins.org... (6)http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu... (7)http://www.neoucom.edu... (8)http://www.livescience.com... (9)http://www.gate.net...