Evolution is flawed

Evolution is based on many small coincidences filled in with assumptions. For example, where does the turtle come from? Scientists deduct that it evolved from some sort of amphibian. Then where is the fossil evidence. In 200 years, ever since Darwin proposed his theory, and even before that, when fossils first were began to be found, no particular fossil(s) even suggested shell development. Another animal that is very much doubted is the snake. Why would natural selection ever remove anything as useful as legs from a snake? In any scenario, having two legs is faster, more efficient, and easier. Third, the relationship between human and chimp is definitely flawed. The scientist the analyzed human and chimp DNA sequence fragments picked up ones that already exhibited a high level of similarity. Sections that didn't line up were tossed out of the mix. Because normal people didn't have the tools and knowledge to analyze it themselves, the supposedly "fact" remains unchallenged. But recent studies indicate that the similarity may amount up to less than 86%- a long way off of the commonly used 98%. My source for this is a magazine called Acts and Facts- and this was a June 2009 edition. I would like to continue by bringing in my points. My first assertion is simply that evolution has no real backbone. Darwin wasn't there for millions of years to see the process. He simply saw the Galapagos Islands' animals at the same time. I am not denying that minor adjustments were made to better suit survival, but large adaptations such as developing us humans from something as insignificant as a single cell of bacteria is slightly far-fetched to deduct from a couple of animals. My second assertion is that there are no ancestor/dexcendnt relationships found. Evolution necessarily implies the concept of "descent from a common ancestor of ancestors.: Yet no ancestor/descendant relationship can be advocated with certainty based on the fossils. Indeed, the differences are obvious and make classification between types possible. My third assertion is that basic types show stasis. Once a basic type appeared, it demonstrated a stasis. Individuals varied in appearance and whole populations varied over the generations to accommodate changing conditions as they "multiplied and filled" earths varied environments, but always they were fundamentally the same as the parent group. The fossil record features stasis as a dominant trend. It does not speak of major changes. Evolution, or the descent from a common ancestor model, demands that major changes visited every population. But this is the evolution "story," not the conclusion drawn from the fossils. My fourth assertion is that most fossils are marine invertebrates. At least 95 percent of all animal fossils are of marine invertebrates. They are found in great variety, but all are well- designed for life in the sea. Some lived in high-energy, ner-shore environments, but others lived in the deep ocean, away from the pounding action of the waves. Among the vertebrates, most fossils are fish, again mostly marine creatures. Of the terrestrial fossils, by far most are plants. Land dwellers, such as the mammals and dinosaurs, are poorly represented in the fossil record. the majority of animals depicted on evolutionary fossil charts in textbooks, however, are land vertebrates. It is thought that a possible case for evolution can be made from thembut this does not accurately portray the real fossil record. To summarize: Combining all these major concepts, we see that the fossil recrd is a record quite different from that presented in support of evolution. Each basic plant and animal type appeared abruptly and fully functional, and then experiences stasis throughout its tenure. Each type was complex and distinct at the start, wiout having descended from some other ancestral type, partcularly from a less complex type. All basic types which have ever lived were presentat the start, and while some have subsequently gone extinct, no new basic typs have appeared since the beginiing. We have reason to believe substantially all basic forms which ever lived have been found as fossils. A generalule is that the fossils extend through a legthy stratigraphic range with little or no change. Most of e fossils are remains of marine invertebrates, found in catastrophic deposits, often in deposites with an incomplete ecosystem present. These predominately marine fossils are almost all found ont he continents, not in the ocean. My sources: Dr. Morris Ph.D. Frank Sherwin, M.A.