You are overlooking a key understanding. Prior to the fall of man, there was no death (pain or suffering). For your theory of evolution death, pain, and suffering are essential elements for the idea of organisms to evolve. Plus, where are all the transitional organisms?

To go beyond proteins, DNA and RNA, and to assemble them into a working biological system is another mystery. We must go from disjointed molecules to complex interrelated systems that are capable of self-maintenance and self-replication.
One approach (Oparin's Coacervate Theory) is to try to construct coacervates (large blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately, this merely holds together random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. (Gish 1972, 27).
Another scheme uses microspheres (Fox's Proteinoid Microsphere Theory) by the pyrocondensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of amino acids that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating systems, etc. (Gish 1972, 30)
A biological system is more than a collection of molecules thrown together - these blobs have to be able to do something, they have to act as little machines with input and output related to some greater purpose in the cell. How a biological system could arise still remains in the realm of "science fiction".
Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells.
Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane that allows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins, regulate it's functions, etc.
Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred billion atoms.
The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269).
To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences.
In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American, Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.
The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.
Consider...
The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.
Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.
Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.
Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.
Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.
Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.
The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.
And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.
The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.
Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

Everywhere...absolutely everywhere. In fact, creatures existing today are in transitional states as it is.

Here's a small sampling from Wikipedia ( WWW Link )...though you can merely type in 'transitional fossils' or 'transitional organisms' in a search engine and get loads of information about them.

~Zoo

It is amazing how much research this guy did.. from sources published decades ago.

Some of his points are interesting.



Well, I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I am pretty sure those are not highly complex. Plus, evolutionary theory allow me to deduce that the Cambrian rocks are not at the bottom, or even these would not be there. I am sure you can do some research to prove me right.



Did you know that a lot of the machinery to synthesize proteins consists of RNA? Probably so recently that these pseudoscientists were able to play ad ignoratium in order to fallaciously substanciate a religious claim, it has been discovered that RNA molecules called "ribozymes" can catalyze such reactions. RNA was probably the first genetic material and the first material to act in biological catalysis. It is, however, pretty unstable considering all the RNAses in the environment.




Seriously, are we going to dig up the dead "irreducible complexity" argument again? Let's worry about evolution back to the original RNA before we discuss how that might have happened, which does not even really matter.



Tunicates (like the common sea squirt) and lancelets are two extant vertebrate groups with only a notochord. Seriously, stop listening to scientists who are probably dead by now. There is a reason people who allow beliefs to influence research come under criticism. They make stupid statements like this.

Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: You may object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

I should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?
One may claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA and RNA, both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
Life is complex.
We know the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. Where is the rest of the creature(s)?

Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those organisms which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? Even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

Complex things require intelligent design!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

Praise God!

Seeing as this is an article about evidence for evolution in the Bible, he's more current than the OP.

I get the feelin' someone here is copying and pasting from creationist sites.

While you can certainly rehash idiotic talking points, you're not really accomplishing anything.

Every "argument" you bring up has been thoroughly rebutted. Maybe you should do as much research into science as you do into this crap and you might learn something.

~Zoo

Honestly, why bother trying to worry about how were were created, or why were were? Isn't it more important to just live life the best you can, whichever your faith or lack of? That's what I believe.

Every "argument" has not been thoroughly rebutted. I will grant you that fact is relative to the individual’s perception of it, and apparently you have obtained a perception based on the religion (theory) of evolution. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that true science does not support evolution nor Creation. However, it does weigh more towards intelligent design. I would be willing to bet your study of science has been through pro-evolution material.

Yes, that's what they claim. Meanwhile where's the proof of DNA of transitional beings? The half reptile/half bird? Every fossil that has been found is all bird, all reptile, all ape or all man.

No transitional forms have been found.

Matter from nothing arguments are out. They do not necesarrily point to an intelligent designer either, although admittedly that is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the universe created itself, for instance. Who can really say about that?

Irreducible complexity arguments frustrate me. I am sick of those. The premise of one is to require a scientist to imagine up a scenario that could explain the phenomenon's evolution. This can usually be done, but the point is more in that there is evidence for evolution and not for Intelligent Design, not that every evolutionary pathway can be broken down. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design. Even if evolution were somehow disproved, Creationism would only be infintesimally more likely. Attacking science does not benefit religion's credibility.




Seriously, do you want me to propose ways these could have happened? I actually could, but I will not. It is not important. How about I give you a small piece of concrete evidence, say molecular homology. Now, evolution is the accepted theory because I have credible evidence. Show me yours.

oh puh-leeze Zoo...coming from the "here check my link" guy because I really rely on others to tell me what the truth is? You gotta be kidding!



yep, and you would be right!   



of course there is...look outside. There's your evidence. Everything has a designer...everything.



Who's attacking Science here? No Christian should ever attack Science. It's not Science we have a problem with. It's humanism wrapped up in the pretty package of evolution we have a problem with. It looks fancy dancy on the outside but when you open the package it's nothing but an empty present.



ya...I'm game...go for it.

I think you do not understand molecular homology or you would see that it is evidence for evolution.



I'd rather they did this... it beats the ordinary "god made it because i said so" argument.



The theology, the ad ignorantiam debacle, of irreducible complexity opposes the science of evolution.



Good guess considering that is the only legitimate study of science. If Francis Collins believes in IC, I'll eat my hat right before I send a letter requesting his resignation.




That's not evidence. You propose because no one was actually there and thus there is some doubt as to how evolution occurred that it must not have occured at all. Irreducible complexity, at its core, is not a valid argument; it's a refusal to investigate and a reliance on ignorance. You might as well say that God made the creatures of the earth because anyone who does not believe so is a looney.

And yet you rely on the Bible......

Which, if taken different ways, means: Either man wrote it. "God" wrote it. Man interpreted Gods will/words.

Each way, you're getting your truth from others...

"....Different branches of biology have different theoretical interests and goals
and thus employ the homology concept in a different manner...."

"Homology is what I call an investigative kind concept. An investigative kind is a group of things that are assumed to belong together because they share a structural feature or mechanisms that generates the characteristic features of the kind...."

"The homology concept is an investigative kind concepts because its historical origin stems
from the fact that biologists perceived and perceive a unity of form among different groups of organisms (Riedl, ’78; Wagner, ’86; Young, ’93; Müller, 2003)."

http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/radiation.pdf

Apperantly you are trying to make a supposition a fact!
I reiterate: Every "argument" has not been thoroughly rebutted. I will grant you that fact is relative to the individual’s perception of it, and apparently you have obtained a perception based on the religion (theory) of evolution. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that true science does not support evolution nor Creation. However, it does weigh more towards intelligent design. I would be willing to bet your study of science has been through pro-evolution material.

molecular homology. I'm not talking about, "wow, that animal sure looks a lot like the others." I mean, "wow, that animal's DNA is certainly similar to another's, albeit a little more complex."

Ultimately, though, indirect evidence can only slant probability in a certain direction. While the probability of evolution is certainly high, I cannot make you accept it. On the other hand, I do wonder why your alternative is far less likely.