If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

.
all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original cell.

the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.

.

You're making even less sense than you normally make... and THAT is some feat!

The diagram you posted is a multi-cell organism replicating and reproducing. A single-cell organism doesn't do that. It remains a single cell. The diagram is showing several cells inside of a common membrane but the several cells cannot be ONE cell. Several doesn't equal one... it's math... learn it!

.
that is as close to a concession anyone will ever get from the Bossy, there may be hope for them afterall.


A single-cell organism doesn't do that.

that is exactly what a single cell did for the next step in evolution, divided itself - it does not magically appear from one to two distinct dissimilar cells in the process the creationist depict it as.

or more likely two single cells collided, liked it and joined together and began the cycle of ever more improvement.

.

 

[Boss]

.
all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original cell.

the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.

.

You're making even less sense than you normally make... and THAT is some feat!

The diagram you posted is a multi-cell organism replicating and reproducing. A single-cell organism doesn't do that. It remains a single cell. The diagram is showing several cells inside of a common membrane but the several cells cannot be ONE cell. Several doesn't equal one... it's math... learn it!

.
that is as close to a concession anyone will ever get from the Bossy, there may be hope for them afterall.


A single-cell organism doesn't do that.

that is exactly what a single cell did for the next step in evolution, divided itself - it does not magically appear from one to two distinct dissimilar cells in the process the creationist depict it as.

or more likely two single cells collided, liked it and joined together and began the cycle of ever more improvement.

.

Well sorry but you have not proven this happened and you can't replicate this theory in a lab. So what you have is a faith-based belief that's what happened. The problem is, biology simply doesn't support your theory.

A cell of a single cell organism has some similarities with cells from a multi-cell organism but the functions are completely different. That can't just be shucked off as a trivial detail, it's very important. Your argument is infantile and childlike but you are persistent. You've demonstrated you have no knowledge of biology or how living organisms work.

 

[the_human_being]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

 

[BreezeWood]

A cell of a single cell organism ...

you are a poor loser bossy,

name any creature on earth which does not begin as a single cell and that does extend beyond an initial membrane ...

.

 

[Boss]

you are a poor loser bossy,

name any creature on earth which does not begin as a single cell and that does extend beyond an initial membrane ...

Any multi-cellular organism.

In ALL multi-cell organisms, the cells depend on other cells to carry on the process of life. These organisms do not begin as single-cell organisms, they always require two gamete reproductive cells to initiate the organism and begin the process of life. An "organism" is not an "organism" until it carries on the process of life.... that's what defines an organism.

And I am not a poor loser, Breezy... I am just way smarter than you and I refuse to allow your incompetence to win the arguments you cannot support. You don't like that so you call me names and denigrate. I totally understand... if I were being embarrassed in front of everyone, I'd probably be upset as well. But you're not going to make this stop by insulting me, you should realize that by now. The best option you have is to stop posting.

 

[Boss]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

Kind of, but they will say you're over-simplifying this... You see, first we have to totally suspend disbelief. We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism. Over millions and billions of years, and against all mathematical odds, this original organism brought forth millions of life forms which are totally interdependent on each other in an environment that should not exist and in a universe that shouldn't be here.

 

[pinqy]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

Not even close.

 

[pinqy]

We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism.

No one claims that.

 

[james bond]

This one billion trillion FPS ultra-high speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime. The light is reflected but you can see it move forward. So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars. It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon. Thus, a star "seen" from the edge of the universe can actually be from 6,000 years ago on Earth as seen through our most powerful telescopes. If one can place an atomic clock at the edge of the universe and one on Earth, then the one at the edge could show 15 billions of years while the one on Earth shows 6,000 years.

Explanation here TED Talks

 

[the_human_being]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

Kind of, but they will say you're over-simplifying this... You see, first we have to totally suspend disbelief. We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism. Over millions and billions of years, and against all mathematical odds, this original organism brought forth millions of life forms which are totally interdependent on each other in an environment that should not exist and in a universe that shouldn't be here.

Exactly. It would be easier to believe in the Mother Goose tales.

 

[the_human_being]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

Not even close.

Well, I did ask for some help in understanding it, didn't I? Simply explain to me how it was possible for a human baby to be produced from a single asexual cell. That should simple enough for all you scientific brains out there.

 

[pinqy]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

Not even close.

Well, I did ask for some help in understanding it, didn't I?

True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.

 

[forkup]

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.

1. The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance. When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet. For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth. All they could measure is length and width. Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one. There is the problem of spacetime. I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology. However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
2. I didn't flip anything. When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer. Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating. Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article. If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us. On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period. If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded. It is biased to say the least. All of the results should be discarded.
3. I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments. The picture above showed 16 of them. The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money. Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side. Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania. This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago. It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet. The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors. Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.

We can't compare her feet to the tracks found. There are no foot bones! Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.

Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man? It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.

1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.

1. It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience. I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you. This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news? Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity. Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science. Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime. The light is reflected but you can see it move forward. You can watch it on youtube. So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars. It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon. If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work. Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars. Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries. CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
2. Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas. I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained. CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science. What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories. Why is this so? This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first. Darwin was able to publish it first.). It also happened with catastrophism. It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
3. Show me how bipedalism evolved? The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."

"In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named Australopithecus ramidus, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, Ardipithecus.12

Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, Australopithecus anamensis. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an A. anamensis tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be Australopithecus afarensis (~3.9 million years ago).

It is still not clear if Ardipithecus ramidus possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.

If A. ramidus lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view A. ramidus as the ancestral species that gave rise to A. anamensis. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."

Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism

4. How can bones determine how long someone lived? I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did. They were more perfect. The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes. We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen. One has to be lucky. What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

 

[Boss]

We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism.

No one claims that.

Well... Yes, they do. Breezy is arguing it in this very thread. Others have argued it as well. They believe all living things evolved from a common single cell organism. Evolutionists can't logically explain origin of life otherwise.

 

[Boss]

True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.

Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.

Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.

 

[the_human_being]

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding? Is that about right?

Not even close.

Well, I did ask for some help in understanding it, didn't I?

True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.

Of course it was. That's the way babies are being produced now Cheeze!! Go back and get a refund from what you paid for your education or get a woman and let her explain to you how babies are made and how they have always been made.

 

[the_human_being]

True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.

Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.

Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.

Boss, you can't use common sense on the highly intelligent.

 

[pinqy]

We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism.

No one claims that.

Well... Yes, they do. Breezy is arguing it in this very thread. Others have argued it as well. They believe all living things evolved from a common single cell organism. Evolutionists can't logically explain origin of life otherwise.

There's a difference between saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. The first implies that one single cell creature somehow transformed itself into a multi-cellular creature. What makes more sense is that single cell creatures formed colonies...over time, due to transcription errors, and/or other changes, parts of the colony were no longer independent, then none of the colony was independent and that is a multicellular creature.

What process do you suggest makes more sense?

 

[pinqy]

True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.

Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.

Not quite. It seems you're thinking of evolution like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, where there is a set beginning state and a set end state, with a transition state in between. But that's not what evolutionary theory claims. Most changes are incremental and small, and not necessarily distinctly recognizable. There's no point where you can clearly say: "this generation was species A, and the next generation was species B." There's a point where you can say "Species A" and a point where you can say "Species B," but you can't necessarily recognize the point of change...or a side branch that becomes species A.5 instead of B.

And remember...when you're saying "suddenly," that means over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Fossils are rare. We can't expect to find any, but what we can do is predict that IF certain fossils are found that they will have certain qualities. And those predictions, such as whales with legs, have been correct.

Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.

Why would it have to "save it?" Ostriches, emus, cassowaries, kiwis, all seem to do well with non-functioning wings that are not good arms.

 

[Boss]

There's a difference between saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. The first implies that one single cell creature somehow transformed itself into a multi-cellular creature. What makes more sense is that single cell creatures formed colonies...over time, due to transcription errors, and/or other changes, parts of the colony were no longer independent, then none of the colony was independent and that is a multicellular creature.

What process do you suggest makes more sense?

Uhmm... NAw... there is no difference in saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. It's two ways of saying exactly the same thing. In your hypothesis, the single cell evolved into multi-cell organism... you surmise it was through "transcription errors" and colonization. The problem is, there is no biological support for your hypothesis. Therefore, it doesn't make sense.

Biologically speaking, multi-cell and single cell organisms operate and function differently. It's like saying if you grow grapes long enough, they will produce goldfish. They are two biologically different systems. Back when Darwin was alive, people did THINK this, because it sounds plausible and rational... but that's the amazing thing about science.... many times, the plausible and rational explanation is totally wrong. This is precisely why we invented Science.