A Question for Biologists or those with knowledge.?

Question

I am asking someone with more knowledge than I to please refute these ridiculous assertions.
EVOLUTION IS A HOAX HERE Is PROOF TO ALL YOU ATHEIST?
are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Wiggles, i have a fairly good grasp of Evolution. I am not a Biologist though. I did not want to refute these statements in an incorrect manner. So i was looking for someone with a more advanced knowledge than myself. That is all. Thank you for answering.

Answer 1

> are no transitional links and intermediate forms
Every species that didn't become extinct without leaving descendants is a transitional form.

Consider a final form, the mini-dachshund. Now think of other dog breeds as being intermediate forms between gray wolf and mini-dachshund.

> is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Um, mutations and selection (and isolation / genetic drift) are indeed capable of producing the biodiversity we see today.

Let's go back to our mini-dachshund example. The short legs are a mutation. Selection concentrated that allele in population of dogs. The small size is probably a mutation in a regulatory gene. Again, selection concentrated that in a population of dachshunds. An owner of a mini-dachshund will tell you that his pet is an improvement over the gray wolf.

> matter resulted from nothing
Um, that's not biological evolution. That's cosmology and physics. We don't get into biological evolution until about nine billion years after the big bang.

> life resulted from non-life an impossibility of science
Not an impossibility. Highly improbable, though. It took hundreds of millions of years, ... and it appears to have happened successfully only once (well, anyway, all the biological life that we know about appears to be based on the same 'genetic code' or slight variant thereof).

> humans resulted from animals
Sure did. This is the best explanation for all those hominid fossils we find in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The Bible messes up on this point, saying that among the animals, Adam saw none of his own kind. Christians who also believe in evolution have to believe that Adam wasn't unique, and there were people who weren't placed in the Garden of Eden.

> They are neither clear nor conclusive
They provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't know which of these species are our direct lineal ancestors, and which are also-ran extinct "cousin" or "great-uncle" species. But I tell you, in a civil case, "evolution from hominid ancestors" would win because there is a "preponderance of evidence."

And I say again, the Bible is less clear on this point. Why are there hominid fossils at all? Are they put there to deceive us? Well, G-d isn't the Deceiver, and the Bible says G-d created the Earth. It doesn't mention that Satan helped Him. Using this logic, you must conclude that if the Earth were created by a non-deceitful G-d, then some of those fossils must be of our ancestors, and we evolved from them.

Answer 2

Firstly, if they are "ridiculous assertions" then you should know the reason why as opposed to just assuming they are.

But anyway... concerning #3, I guess that's basically saying, how can something come from nothing? which is a stupid argument when debating between religion and science as whilst science dosent have an answer to that nor does religion, (or at least religions answer that God is infinate, i.e has always been there, is the same as one of sciences' answer, the big bang theory, were the universe has been collapsing in on its self and then expanding through out time), and the fact "that life resulted from non-life" really depends on how you classify life, as humans, animals and plants are built of exactly the same materials as every other thing in the universe!

Regarding #1, From what I understand about evolution (which isn't loads) I would assume that if a new species evolved from another species then there should be plenty of evidence of transitional links as I would imagine a quick jump from one species to another does not occur.

Answer 3

1. There are transitional forms. Archaeopteryx is perfectly poised between small carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. However, the creationists then demand transitional forms between those forms, and then forms between those forms, etc.
2. No such thing as "higher order." Evolution changes animals to adapt better to their environment as it changes. Is a dog higher than a sloth?
3. Merely stating that these are impossibilities of science does not make it so.
4. These are not unrevealing and inconsistent, as anyone who actually looks at them (or their images) could tell. Don't forget that human evolution is not a single straight line but has lots of side branches.