evolution is wrong

I understand that niether evolutionary biology nor geology predict that fosilization will occur at a consistent rate throughout the whole history of life. But the fact that the gaps are there show how it is inconsistent. You are making a claim blindly. You say that just because we can't see how the evolution happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it doesn't mean it did either. You and I are using the same logic. You say that you assume it happens because it happened everywhere else, but I say I assume it didn't happen because it never happened anywhere else. You completely forgot what I said on your analogy. I said that it's not a matter of whether gravity persisted, it's a matter of how high you jumped. You can't say you jumped 7 feet high without proof. You can't say that evolution happened without proof. And yes, I understand everything you said about proof. You are saying something happened during the time we have no evidence of. You are making a completely blind assumption about what happened. You can't do this. To say that species evolved without the evidence of them evolving is absurd. You also forgot to argue Romer's Gap with me. I said that there is a gap between organisms living in water, to organisms living on land. That one is pretty important to evolution. Yet you conveniently forget that. You as the opposition of this debate have to prove that evolution is right. That is all. If you can't do that, you lose. And you haven't done that. Especially when you forget Romer's Gap. "And just as you wouldn't assume that gravity stops working as soon as you don't observe an instance of it, you also shouldn't assume that evolution stops working as soon as you don't observe an instance of it." I don't assume evolution has ever worked. EVER. So yes, especially if I see an instance where there is a problem with it I will assume it doesn't work. It is fitting to talk here about what evolution is. Throughout this entire debate we have been talking about macroevolution, or the evolution of one species into a different species. Not microevolution, or the changing of a species within that same species. You give the examples of bacteria, plants, fruit flies, humans, and dogs. None of these examples that you are talking about specifically, are examples of them changing species. Yes, dogs may breed to make a different breed entirely, but not a new species entirely. Fruit flies may adapt to their environment, and moths may change color based on their environment, but they did not change species entirely. That is what we have been talking about throughout the debate. So please, stick to macroevolution. And no, I didn't misunderstand the purpose of the analogy, I said it was flawed. Then I fixed it. You're saying that you jumped high. Now prove it. You can't. I couldn't see it, so I can't know you did in all actuality jump high. Yes, I am familiar with the principle of uniformitarianism. But the basis of your statement relies on your belief that evolution is true. You are saying, evolution is true because evolution is true. That doesn't make sense. You can't say that. It's illogical. You must prove that evolution is true, therfore throwing off your presupposition that evolution is true. You have to start by saying it isn't true. Then because of certain reasons which you have yet to provide, come to the realization that it is true. You haven't done that. You say that I have yet to prove that the gaps pose a problem with evolutionary theory. Oh, I didn't know that without evidence showing how an organism from the water became an organism on the land is automatically true. I forgot that just because I am debating evolution, I automatically have to accept that it is true. Oh wait. No I don't. It's your burden to prove how it is true. When there is a gap such as Romer's Gap, you can't automatically assume it happened. You have to PROVE it did. You have to PROVE that simple organisms evolved into complex organisms. You also forgot to argue how there were fossils, then there weren't, and then there were. You said that it is possible that there are just no fossils of them because the conditions weren't right. You mean to tell me the conditions weren't right for 20 to 30 MILLION YEARS? That seems a little absurd to me. Surely there would be some evidence of fossils from thirty million years. To think otherwise is stupidity. Now let's go back to the actual problem posed by the gap. You say that complex creatures with hard features are going to fossilize, while less complex softer creatures aren't. I agree. That makes sense. But with a gap, there are harder complex creatures that fossilized. Then there are no fossils, meaning softer less complex creatures died and didn't fossilize, then there are harder complex creatures that fossilized. So the gap means that they "devolved" by getting less complex. That is a huge problem with the gap in the fossil record. Now on to the archaeopteryx. I must say that it is sad when you start using wikipedia as your source for information. I may as well get information from jurassic park. Both would obviously be legitimate. But since the archaeopteryx isn't in jurassic park, at least not that I know of I haven't seen the movies, then I'll disregard that last statement. Now you say that the feathers would be a good thing because it provides insulation. Now you do say that is only one of many possibilities. But then we must talk about complexity. Evolution is based off of traits being passed on from one generation to another. How were feathers passed on? It must have been a mutation. But when, in the history of all histories, has a mutation created DNA? EVER. No where in any recorded history has a mutation increased the complexity of an organism. And that's what would have to happen in order for feathers to all of a sudden exist. And that's not possible. Which means that feathers would have to have been passed down. Which means that they couldn't have evolved. Which means that the archaeopteryx, was not a dinosaur. And by dinosaur, I mean what we think of when we were young. A T-rex, or stegosaurus. Those types of dinosaurs. It was as I have already said, a bird. A flightless bird. And yes, I already said that the archaeopteryx and an ostrich have nothing but being flightless in common. But that's all I was referring to when I said "much like our own ostrich." That only had to do with flight. ONLY with flight. ONLY WITH FLIGHT. There, I don't think you can miss that. If I forgot part of what you said, I'm sorry, since I can't exactly read what was posted below the actual debate.