Evolution (as in the theory of evolution) happens

Evolution(n. ) change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift The Theory of Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next However; the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. (1) "This definition is actual fact. There is no denying that there are changes in the gene pool. " Because of the Darwinist theory of evolution many hundreds of thousands of geologists have in vain been 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. Most major groups of organisms appear suddenly full-blown in the fossil record in contrary to Darwin's idea of development because of the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. The fossil record is not an unbroken chain of transitional forms. Life developed in a saltational way, in a leapfrog fashion. (Saltational(n. )- an abrupt movement or transition. ) (2) The above statement shows that the Theory of Evolution's driving force (Darwin's theories) shows many flaws, you tell of a generation by generation process of "mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" although there is no geological evidence of a *generation by generation* change. 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. (3) The "Tree of Life" is what you refer to when you talk about animals coming from a common origin (Although, it would be all life, not animals alone). To this, I must state there are no geological indications for a primordial soup. 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 "inter-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. (4) In conclusion, the Darwinist Theory is disproved by Darwin himself in the words "natura non facit saltum". I mention the Darwinist Theory because it is the driving force behind the Theory of Revolution. I await a rebuttal Citations (Could you please Cite your evidence? ) (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (definition) (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (definition) (3) . http://members.chello.nl... (evidence) (4) . http://www.discovery.org... (evidence)