Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

Before I go into a rebuttal, I would like to point out that you are branching out into two main areas first, you claim that a punctuated equilibrium is how speciation occurred (Life developed in a saltational way, in a leapfrog fashion.), and then you move on to an argument against abiogenesis (I must state there are no geological indications for a primordial soup.). In your next argument please explain exactly how you think that punctuated equilibrium is different than Darwinian Evolution (especially since it was an example of punctuated equilibrium that spurred Darwin to write On the Origin of Species). "[Darwin had scientists] looking for missing links in the development of primitive life to Homo Sapiens. Those missing links don't exist and all geological effort was spoiled." This is simply not true. Although it is true that it is a geological rarity to have the evidence of a frame by frame evolution such as in the horse (1). Transitional forms are numerous in the fossil record. These are the three most famous transitional forms. 1.Archaeopteryx – the transitional form from birdlike dinosaurs to birds (2) 2.Tiktaalik- a lobed fish which began displaying amphibious features (3) 3.Ambulocetus – an early "walking whale" which could swim and walk on land (4) Since you directly addressed the absence of missing links in the development of Homo sapiens, I would hope that the increasing amount of early hominids (5) would be sufficient evidence to the contrary. Also, a genetic analysis of human and ape chromosomes points to a common origin (6). As to your presentation of punctuated equilibrium, I would argue that this is the most prime example of Darwinian Evolution there is. It is a scientific "no-brainer" that the more isolated a small population is, the more likely it is to be able to change. I'm sure if Darwin had read the theory drawn up in the 70's, he would have asked us how it took us so long to arrive at this idea. Even Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge knew that the punctuated equilibrium was only a minor edit to explain how Darwinian evolution happened, not to replace it. (7) The generation by generation change you speak of happens every day, but most of the time the changes are so slight that they are imperceptible on the fossil record. "To this, I must state there are no geological indications for a primordial soup." Although this argument is a matter of abiogenesis and not one of evolution, I will humor you and delve into the intricacies of the origins of life. Although I could take the easy way out an argue that panspermia was the origin of life, I would like to present the currently accepted model on the origins of life that does not involve such outlandish claims (pun intended). 1.Pre-biotic conditions produce monomers (basic components of life) 2.Lipids (phospholipids to be more specific) spontaneously form lipid bilayers 3.Nucleotides form random RNA molecules which in turn formed ribozymes (early life used RNA as genetic coding) 4.Ribosome is born 5.Proteins have stronger catalytic ability, replace ribozymes as catalysts- Nucleic acids restricted to genomic use (8) There are several other theories on exactly how these events took place, and the steps in which the first life was formed. Citations (ask and ye shall receive) (1)http://chem.tufts.edu... (2)http://www.talkorigins.org... (3)http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu... (4)http://www.neoucom.edu... (5)http://www.livescience.com... (6)http://www.gate.net... (7)http://prelectur.stanford.edu... (8)http://en.wikipedia.org... (although I do not usually sanction the use of Wikipedia as a research tool, the amount of theories on the page is staggering.)