Paladin77, why do so much research only to know so little? Go read a textbook on evolutionary analysis if you are really curious what evolutionary biologists think. Personally, I think ecology and other big things biology can be a lot of hocus pocus in practice.
You missed the point of my article. As Mr. Darwin states evolution is my issue and all of you are swiftly saying I need to read evolutionary theory written by other people. I agree with you that most of the work done on the subject is crap but it pays their bills.
Even when I go to the website you suggested I find corroboration with my article. An example is listed below.
“Although it is generally accepted that major changes in the earth's history are significant drivers of phylogenetic diversification and extinction, such episodes may also have long-lasting effects on genomic architecture. Here we show that widespread reductions in genome size have occurred in multiple lineages of mammals subsequent to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, whereas there is no evidence for such changes in other vertebrate, invertebrate, or land-plant lineages. Although the mechanisms remain unclear, such shifts in mammalian genome evolution may be a consequence of an increase in the efficiency of selection against excess DNA resulting from post-KT population-size expansions. Independent historical changes in genome architecture in diverse lineages raise a significant challenge to the idea that genome size is finely tuned to achieve adaptive phenotypic modifications, and suggest that attempts to use phylogenetic analysis to infer ancestral genome sizes may be problematical”.
So even trying to backtrack through DNA we find that they have yet to explain the explosion of life after KT. It tells me that they are struggling to find a way to prove evolution and the new tools don’t help their cause. Since this paper was published yesterday after three months of peer review I would have to say it is as up to date as we can get. The earlier suggestion that the environment was the trigger for evolution is clearly being explored through biology and another dead end was found. Biology can tell you a lot of things the one thing they can’t explain is where we came from and how we got here.
Back to my point. Mr. Darwin suggests that evolution happens over long periods of time making gradual changes until a new species is formed DNA has not proven this, fossil records does not show this, biology does not support it when you get down and actually look at the data.
Diawa, below is what I am talking about.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Footnotes:
- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.
- Ibid. p. 158.
- Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.
- "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
A long time can not be a scant half billion years because there is not enough time for each change to take place without leaving a fossil or biological record. The DNA goes back as far as there is material to test it and there is nothing discovered to support Mr. Darwin. Paleontologists have not found fossil records that show the transition species. Geologists are saying the Earth is renewing itself and we can only go back 4.5 billion years in some places because of that renewal. Once the rocks are melted there is no more record.
Diawa, remember according to Mr. Darwin, all species on the planet started from the same non-living matter and split from there to the diversity we see today. Please show me the tree that evolved through natural selection into an elephant or the fish that evolved through natural selection into man. There had to be a long time to make this happen or we would still see it all happening today or we would have fossil records showing this diversity. Science has become so sophisticated now that it is very hard to hide the mistakes that everyone that believes in evolution support. Since you say evolution can happen in less time or at least you question my suggestions that evolution needs more time, what do you suggest as a time frame for chemicals floating in a primordial soup to become alive and then evolve into the trillions of species we have today?