Nerdicus:
But what if the less evolved version of a thing, is the only thing that has the building materal to become something else. So, we won't find anything with our building blocks because we are it. We are that thing with the DNA capabilities of become what we are. And who knows what potential is till locked in there?
The problem isn't so much finding an animal with more DNA compared to one with less, but seeing the addition of completely new genetic material (in regards to amount) to a creature's reproductive cells, and then that genetic material is successfully combined with other members of the species to create a new breed that has more DNA than its predecessors. Even if this is only an addition of a few little amino acids on the end of an existing chromosome, I personally am not aware of science having documented this sort of change happening. And if we can't be certain that DNA can be added on, or that that added on DNA will be passed on to younger generations, the theory of evolution has a big question to be answered.
quote:
For example, a one celled organism is theorized to be able to change into a higher organism. What we see in observable science is that there isn't any one celled organism giving birth to a frog. It doesn't result in new additonal information needed to be able to be a frog. There's just not enough information for a frog.
This is not
precisely true. A one celled organism is not believed to be able to change into a multi-celled organism. A single-celled organism is believed to be able to *create* a multi-celled organism, but both organisms are otherwise exceptionally similar. The multi-celled organism is capable of creating another organism with other changes not reflected in either parent. But no single celled organism will turn into a frog, rather one of their descendents will be a frog (if we're talking about a particular organism far in the past). The parents of this frog will be so much like frogs, people will likely call them frogs too (and only a specialist in frogs would be able to point out the difference, likely based on a simple structure being a different direction or a millimeter longer than it should or some other technicality), just like their parents and theirs before that, and you'll have to go back quite a ways until the accumulated changes become such that it's clearly not a frog.
(Well, what I said isn't precisely true either. A zygote is a single celled organism that changes into a multi-celled organism.)
quote:
Now having said that, that's still not what a transitional species. Let me give you an example. A transitional species is the animal that is the inbetweener. Evolutionists have come up with a theory to explain why they are not found in the fossil record, it's called Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically since they believe evolution took place, but it happened extrememly fast. So instead of taking hundreds and thousands of slight mutations, it took only a few, large and radical changes to alter the animals.
I had never heard that, and I suspect you'll find that Punctuated Equilibrium is not held by all evolutionists. We HAVE found evidence of transitional species. We've found dozens of species between us and apes, sharing qualities of both, but fully matching neither.
But rogue is right in his last post, fossils are unusual enough that it's difficult to find even a few transitional species, muchless the thousands or hundreds that would be required to fully illustrate the change over time.