Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

As I simply do not have the time to write out a sentence by sentence reply (term papers take up a lot of time), I will briefly outline some key points. 1. Your mental grasp of punctuated equilibrium is quite weak. (I still do not understand why you said I conceded that point. You based your entire argument on your view of punctuated equilibrium, and I asked you to read Gould's articles, which show how he believes a frame by frame evolution happened.) You undoubtedly got the majority of your information about punctuated equilibrium on dictionary.com and Wikipedia. Let me quickly explain. Punctuated Equilibrium states that when in a large gene pool, mutations tend to be bred out, while in a smaller gene pool it is easier for them to be passed on. (1) Therefore, punctuated equilibrium IS frame by frame evolution. 2. The Latin phrase "natura non facit saltum" mean's nature makes no leap i.e. frogs don't breed and lay eggs that hatch as chickens. It merely states that there is a transitional phase in evolution. 3. You have a paragraph in quotes which you say came from one of my sources... but it doesn't. I couldn't find it anywhere on the page, but I will address it anyway "Water, in cooling, does not gradually harden as if it thickened like porridge, gradually solidifying until it reached the consistency of ice; it suddenly solidifies, all at once. It can remain quite fluid even at freezing point if it is standing undisturbed, and then a slight shock will bring it into the solid state." - from your argument Well first I would like to point out that water freezes all at once because of the way the hydrogen bonds react with each other (this also creates surface tension and lower ice density). But glass, when freezing, does gradually become harder and harder because it is an amorphous solid. 4. Louis Pasteur does not have anything to do with evolution. This is true, but I was merely referencing the idea that nature truly does not make any leaps. 5. "You speak that my case of punctuated equilibrium is false because frame-by-frame specimens would be destroyed, then you give examples of ones that have not been destroyed; I think it is quite obvious that you twist the debate to go whatever way will benefit you most."-again from your argument First let me make it quite clear that I am not speaking against true punctuated equilibrium, just your deluded version of it. Secondly, I was merely pointing out that saying frame-by-frame evolution didn't happen because we haven't seen fossils of every species ever is quite absurd. I give examples of species which we can see have evolved slowly in a frame-by-frame manner because they further my point. I will (besides in this sentence) not address your accusations of a stacked debate. 6. Well, when an asexual cell lives, it clones itself. If there was a mutation which was beneficial, the cell would be able to survive easier. When this happens, more cells like it are born, and because they are already well adapted, they thrive until a new mutation comes along in which some die out, or become even better adapted.<- this is all middle school biology and common sense, do you really need any sources for it? I am sorry, but my points from rounds two and three have yet to be addressed on any meaningful level, and therefore I will not make any new ones. Citations (1) http://www.stephenjaygould.org...