Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

I'm sorry, you had a rather unclear resolution. My argument on punctuated equilibrium is to debate that there is a flawed Theory of Evolution due to a corrupted base (Darwin); my argument on phylogeny (What you conceived to be abiogenesis) was against your "Tree of Life" theory. I have taken the following excerpt from your opening: "The idea under examination is the theory of evolution, which puts forward the idea that this genetic drift has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years, and that all animals started out of a common origin, branching out and specializing into particular environmental niches." So, now I hope you can understand where I got the argument against the Theory of Evolution; "The idea under examination is the theory of evolution"; and phylogeny, "…and that all animals started out of a common origin, branching out and specializing into particular environmental niches." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darwin was a son of his time when he said that Nature couldn't make any jumps, natura non facit saltum. This was in harmony with the ideas of Descartes, Laplace, Newton or Leibniz who explained the world in a mechanical manner. But jumps undermine the Darwinist theory of evolution, which fits like a glove in the purpose of the planners to maintain their power and their social order. Therefore ideas connected with jumps are still not allowed. The words ‘natura non facit saltum' became a dogma. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darwin argued that evolution was done in a frame by frame style; geological evidence has only proved punctuated equilibrium, remember the phrase "natura non facit salum". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When I suggested the missing links, I mean to state that man's frame by frame evolution (suggested by Darwin) has not yet been seen; only our punctuated equilibrium. You speak that punctuated equilibrium would be condoned by Darwin, and it helps prove his theory, although Darwin himself suggested that punctuated equilibrium could not exist. "natura non facit saltum", I'm sorry to use this phrase so much; I'm sure it's getting rather annoying to see so much Latin. I would ask to see some evidence on your conclusion of the generation by generation changes that happen daily. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to argue that this is not an argument of abiogenesis, but an argument of phylogeny which is the "Tree of Life" concept, the very concept you've stated in your somewhat vague resolution. Homeobox genes can explain some changes when genes are already present in the DNA but they can't make new genes. (1) The necessary amino acid and sugar chains would not arise in water anyway. And if, for example, some amino acid bonds did temporarily arise, then an "intra-molecular reaction" instead of linear, as necessary for proteins, would result. 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. The simplest free-living single celled micro-organisms typically possess thousands of "gene families", meaning genes whole sequences are so different, that one cannot suspect that one evolved from another via mutations. The resulting proteins create thousands of biochemical processes, which are in parallel and perfectly regulated. But where did all these new genes come from? Superfluous DNA (for example from gene duplication) is disadvantageous for micro-organisms due to waste of energy and material. The longer chromosomes would take longer to replicate. Computer models show that these lineages, with extra DNA, would go extinct thanks to natural selection, before enough mutation could arise to create truly new genes. (2) Citations (1) http://members.chello.nl... (2) http://www.discovery.org...