Originally posted by Omniscaper
Thats all well and good Karajorma, but its still no evidence for trans-species evolution.
EDIT; heehee... I think I just mirrored exactly what kara said on the first page of this topic......
Um... what about the transition fossil forms between dinosaurs and birds (Archeopteryx is the obvious one, also composognathus and others)
Othniel Marsh also observed and documented fossil evidence for the evolution of the horse.
Going further back, there are further fossils of developing fish life, including fossils of fish which developed lungs and then limbs (Acanthostega, for example, was a Upper Devonian era fish with both lungs and gills).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html gives some further answers discussing the fossil record as it exists.
Obviously the natural incompleteness of the fossil record means it's never going to be easy (something like all the human population of earth would amount to maybe 10 or less fossils a few million years down the line), but it's wrong to suggest there have been no transitional fossils discovered.
A secondary point over your later mention of the law of thermodynamics; it's my understanding that a misquoted version of that law is a common feature in anti-evolution arguements. However, that arguement - that entropy leads to a disorganised and chaotic system of decay - only applies to
closed systems. And our world / universe clearly isn't that.
Finally (because I can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread and picking up stuff to nitpick), there's not - or at least no longer - an assumption that DNA formed spontaneously; I believe one of the current theories being tested is that it effectively evolved in the prebiotic 'sea' of early earth, i.e. all these long molecular amino acid combinations didn't just emerge in their current form. (although there's not an assumption this was all totally random chance anyways; these things actually tend to 'crystallize' into long molecular chains anyways IIRC).
And, of course, the more likely scenario IIRC is that RNA formed as a precursor to DNA itself.
Of course, the exact conditions of the earth at that point are still being investiagated and discussed; some scientists thing it would take life about a billion years to arise, some believe it only took a few million but had to restart a few times due to meteoric imapct, etc, wiping it out.
An interesting consideration with regards to complexity in creation imply design is, though, that some things aren't well 'designed'. Panda thumbs, for example.
Anyways, point being I think you're discounting a lot of know facts & evidence in your conclusion. The 2nd law of thermodynamics-> entropy thing, if you're meaning it the way I
think you are, is completely off base. And that does worry me a bit, because it's one thing to have legitimate concerns - evolutionary science is still being constantly researched and revised to keep updating the theory - it's another when those concerns aren't as factual as you think they are, because it points to deliberate misinformation somewhere along the line.
The other side of the coin is that these percieved holes in evolutionary theory are being constantly addressed and explored; i.e. part of the scientific process. It's not a case of anything deliberately contradictory being dismissed as is sometimes implied.
Ultimately, for creationism - or any other theory - to provided as a serious alternative to evolution, it has to be both defined and supported with evidence that proves /goes towards proving it rather than seeks to discredit the accepted theory.
I don't believe I've seen either the detailed theory or provative evidence of creationism.
