Let's take a look at this shall we?
NOTE: I'll adopt the convention of addressing personal pronouns to the original author of this piece.
Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
Complete bullshit. Want a list of peer reviewed scientific papers containing direct experimental tests and validation of evolutionary hypotheses?
Here you go:
Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology
by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology
, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution
Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis
by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science
1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK
Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory
by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution
vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY
Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila
by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230
, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY
Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment
by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution
vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY
Genetics of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction of Some of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection
by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics
125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms
Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish
by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature
844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved
Initial Sequencing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome
, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature
, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005 - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome
, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chmpanzees are IDENTICAL
Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa
by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science
, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003 - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity
by M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology
Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998 - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity
Protein engineering of hydrogenase 3 to enhance hydrogen production
by T. Maeda, V. Sanchez-Torres and T. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT
Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules
by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics
366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals
Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura
by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966 - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation
The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye
by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells
11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development
The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils
by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals
Apparently the authors of those scientific papers found ways in which evolution could be tested. But then they paid attention in science classes at school.
"Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated.
And those scientific papers above contain direct observations of the requisite phenomena of interest, direct demonstrations of their workings, and are replicable
. Game over.
Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.
Poppycock. See those scientific papers above. Assuming of course that you are capable of reading them in the first place.
one must weigh the evidence
The authors of the above papers did. Once again, game over.
the evidence for evolution is, and has always been lacking
Those scientific papers above suggest otherwise. As do the 18,000+ scientific papers published in evolutionary biology in the year 2007 alone. Unless of course you wish to suggest that all those scientists fabricated the contents of those papers, in which case, I'd love to see you try and pay out the libel damages that would be applicable upon falsely impuging the reputations of the authors of over 18,000 papers.
too much extrapolation and hypotheticals and overwhelming probabilities
Bullshit. See those scientific papers above? No "extrapolation" or "hypotheticals" involved, just direct experimental results. Always assuming of course you know what experimental results ARE in the first place.
the evidence for creation is more believable
WHAT evidence is there for "creation" again? Only I've yet to see it turn up in any peer reviewed scientific paper. If you happen to think that a 3,000 year old book of myths, written by ignorant Bronze Age nomads who were apparently too incompetent to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, counts as "evidence" here, then you need to go back to school and learn what proper
evidential standards are.
Meanwhile, let's address this little list ... another of those "lists" creationists are so fond of ...
1 - Where did the space for the universe come from?
It's obvious that you never paid attention in science class here. Because if you had, you would know that this has nothing
to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, as initially postulated by Darwin, and subsequently built upon and expanded by 150 years of scientific endeavour, is a theory in biology
, and concerns itself solely with the long term behaviour of populations of reproducing living organisms. The question of what mechanisms were responsible for the instantiation of the observable universe and its contents is the remit of cosmology
, which is a branch of physics
. But then the critical thinkers are used to ignroant creationists being too stupid to work out which branches of science are appropriate for which classes of real world phenomena.
If you want a detailed
answer to the above, ask a physicist
. Neil Turok would be a good choice, particularly as he published recently two papers in which he presented a testable mechanism
for the instantiation of the observable universe.
2 - where did matter come from?
Never heard of E = mc² ???
Once you have energy in place, and Turok's papers provide a mechanism for lots
of energy being present in the initially instantiated universe, then matter arises from that energy. The reverse process, by the way, namely the conversion of matter into energy, is the mechanism via which nuclear bombs work, something you might like to reflect upon if ever one is dropped upon you.
3 - Where did the laws of the universe come from? (Gravity, inertia, etc.)
Once again, ask a physicist
. Who will tell you that this is a work in progress. Which, before you are tempted to gaze gleefully upon this response, in no way confers any legitimacy whatsoever upon Bronze Age mythology. If you are unable to understand why "science doesn't have all the answers yet" does NOT equal "3,000 year old mythology is therefore true by default", you need to go back to school and retake Logic 101.
4 - How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Once again, did you attend any science classes at school?
Once you have matter, gravity
causes it to aggregate together. It's the reason that your feet remain connected to Planet Earth and you don't float off into space. Entities with positive mass attract each other via gravity.
5 - Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Once again, ask a physicist
I suspect you will have to spend a decade or more re-taking elementary science classes before you're ready for Turok's papers. But, those papers contain a testable answer for this.
6 - When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
You really do have a major problem with scientific understanding, don't you?
This question is the remit of a scientific discipline called abiogenesis
. Which is the remit of organic chemistry
. Again, a separate scientific discipline. However, there are a good number of papers in the field that propose well defined mechanisms for the appearance of the constituents of life and their organisation into self-replicating entities. Since you, like other creationists, seem so fond of lists, here's another to add to your collection - a list of relevant abiogenesis papers containing various mechanisms for appropriate chemical reactions that have been tested in the laboratory and determined to work:
A Production Of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions
by Stanley L. Miller, Science
A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme
by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
12733-12740, 1st October 2002
A Self-Replicating System
by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society
Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides
by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science
283-286 (8th October 2004)
Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments
by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere
Chemistry for the Synthesis of Nucleobase-Modified Peptide Nucleic Acid
by R. H. E. Hudson, R. D. Viirre, Y. H. Liu, F. Wojciechowski and A. K. Dambenieks, Pure Appl. Chem.
Evolution Of Amino Acid Frequencies In Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order Of Introduction Of Amino Acids Into The Genetic Code
by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk and Mona Singh, Molecular and Biological Evolution
Homochiral Selection In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed And Uncatalysed Prebiotic Synthesis Of RNA
by Prakash C. Joshi, Stefan Pitsch and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications
(Royal Society of Chemistry), 2497-2498 (2000) [DOI: 10.1039/b007444f]
Lipid Bilayer Fibres From Diastereomeric And Enantiomeric N-Octylaldonamides
by Jürgen-Hinrich Fuhrhop, Peter Schneider, Egbert Boekema and Wolfgang Helfrich, Journal of the American Chemical Society
Molecular Asymmetry In Extraterrestrial Chemistry: Insights From A Pristine Meteorite
by Sandra Pizzarello, Yongsong Huang and Marcelo R. Alexandre, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
3700-3704 (11th March 2008)
Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World
by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere
Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA
by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society
Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World
by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal
2012-2019, 18th September 2007
Organic Compounds In Carbonaceous Meteorites
by Mark A. Sephton, Natural Products Reports
(Royal Society of Chemistry), 19:
Peptide Nucleic Acids Rather Than RNA May Have Been The First Genetic Molecule
by Kevin E. Nelson, Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller, Proc. Natl, Acad. Sci. USA.
3868-3871, 11th April 2000
Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts
by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science
1151, 20 February 2004
Racemic Amino Acids From The Ultraviolet Photolysis Of Interstellar Ice Analogues
by Max P. Bernstein, Jason P. Dworkin, Scott A. Sandford, George W. Copoper and Louis J. Allamandola, Nature, 416: 401-403
Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996
RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)
RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001
RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey
, FASEB Journal
(Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), [b]12:
Self Replicating Systems
by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5:
Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA
by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere
Template-Directed Synthesis Of A Genetic Polymer In A Model Protocell
by Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krisnamurthy, Sylvia Tobé, Douglas A. Treco and Jack W. Szostak, Nature
122-125 (4th June 2008)
The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution
by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature
214-221, 11th July 2002
The Descent of Polymerisation
by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology
580-582, July 2001
The Generality Of DNA-Templated Synthesis As A Basis For Evolving Non-Natural Small Molecules
by Zev J. Gartner and David R. Liu, Journal of the American Chemical Society
The Lipid World
by Daniel Segré, Dafna Ben-Eli, David W. Deamer and Doron Lancet, Origins of Life And Evolution of the Biosphere
The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time
by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell
793-798 (14th June 1996)
The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology
Thermostability Of Model Protocell Membranes
by Sheref S. Mansy and Jack W. Szostak, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
13351-13355 (9th September 2008)
Two Step Potentially Prebiotic Synthesis Of [chr]945[/chr]-D-Cystidine-5'-Phosphate From D-Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate
by Carole Anastasi, Michael A. Crowe and John D. Sutherland, Journal of the American Chemical Society (Communications)
Needless to say, the above list is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination. There are tens of thousands of papers extant in the abiogenesis literature, beginning with Miller's 1953 paper. However, since abiogenesis has only been an extant scientific discipline for 55 years, there is still much research left to conduct. Be advised that said research is being
7 - When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Well since self-replication has been demonstrated in RNA strands of around 16 nucleotides in length, this capability was present before
the first protocells came into being. See the above list of abiogenesis papers. Joyce (1996), Unrau et al
(1998) and Johnston et al
(2001) are among the relevant papers. Since we have evidence
of this, because this was demonstrated in the laboratory, and indeed we now have evidence
for a wide range of sef-replicating molecules and the appropriate reaction mechanisms for their replication, life didn't have to "learn" to reproduce itself, it was a natural consequence of the relevant reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry.
8 - With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Oh dear. It seems you entertain the mistaken idea that sexual reproduction came into existence fully formed in an instant, with fully differentiated male and female organisms. Wrong. As anyone who has observed yeast cells in the laboratory will tell you. These are cells that possess a differentiation between cell types that is more primitive than modern male and female cells, and indeed the cells in question switch sexes with each haplooid cell division. Read all about it here
, where a concise explanation is provided. Oh, and since the genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
has been sequenced in full, the detailed genetic mechanism is pretty well understood, having been studied for some time.
9 - Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
This question presumes the existence of only one species in an ecosystem. Once the first protocells existed, imperfect replication would pretty soon have led to the development of differentiated protocell types occupying different niches, including the first predatory niches, long before resource exhaustion became an issue. It's not as if those protocells would have had large appetites in any case. Doesn't take much food substrate to keep bacteria fed, for example.
10 - How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books)
Oh dear, argument from incredulity and ignorance. Time to list more papers where this process has been observed taking place
and for which we have detailed genetic information with regard to the mutations in question
A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.
by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology
, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence
by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984
Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers
by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology
, Feb 1994, pp 1197-1200
Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod
by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
, vol 94, pp 3817-3822, 1997
Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein
by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature
, vol 401, pp 443-444, 1999
Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes
by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
, vol 94, pp 3811-3816, 1997
Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin
by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution
, Vol 20, no 11, pp 1897-1908, 2003
Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance
by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
, vol 103, pp 10491-10496, 2006
Once again, the real scientists
, namely the people who paid attention in science class at school, have worked this out. Your inability to understand how this can take place doesn't invalidate their work, just as 2+2=4 would not be invalidated just because someone was too stupid to understand addition.
11 - Is is possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
No. Because your purported "creator" would be under no restriction in this manner, given that your purported "creator" is postulated to be capable of anything that arises according to whim. Which, incidentally, is why supernatural magic men do not constitute an "explanation" for anything, because once you introduce magic, anything goes. If you don't understand why your purported "creator" is an instance of magic, then again, you need to return to school and engage in the appropriate study.
12 - Natural Selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep the species stable.
Wrong. You really never did pay attention in science class, did you?
Natural selection only keeps a species stable if doing so maintains the ability of that species to reproduce and produce descendants
. If, on the other hand, circumstances in an ecosystem change, and one part of a population possessing a particular collection of mutations suddenly becomes favoured over those that do not, then those favoured individuals in the population will reproduce with more success, and in time dominate the population.
Oh, and while we're at it, let's knock on the head one common misconception. Namely that somehow, those individuals possessing the newly favoured mutants would only mate with each other, and exclude those that did not as choices of mating partner. There is no reason to suggest that this would be the case. Consequently, diversity with respect to other genes would be maintained. The particular favoured genes would eventually spread throughout the population in future generations, but since each organism would possess a large number of genes, it would only be the small number of positively selected genes that would replace the equally small number of genes selected against. Diversity with respect to other genes, particularly genes that were neutral with respect to selection, would be maintained and these would continue to move about the population from generation to generation with the same frequency of transmission they did prior to the ecosystem event leading to positive selection of the other genes. This would continue until some of those genes became positively or negatively selected for as a result of another ecosystem or environmental change.
How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?
Never heard of gene duplication? It happens, has been observed taking place, and has been documented doing so in the scientific literature. See the above papers on antifreeze glycoproteins in Notothenioid fishes, which was the result of a duplication of a pancreatic trypsinogen gene, followed by mutation of the copy, and positive selection upon those mutants that produced an antifreeze glycoprotein.
Also, see the frog species Hyla versicolor
. Which arose from ancestral stock of Hyla chrysocelis
via a wholesale duplication of the entire genome
(a polyploidy event) and thus became tetraploid instead of diploid. We know this because we can trace the ancestry of the Hyla versicolor
genome back to the Hyla chrysocelis
ancestor, in much the same way as it's possible to establish paternity in a lawsuit. You do understand what inheritance
means, don't you?
13 - When, where, why and how did: a) single-celled plants become multi-celled (where are the two-and three-celled intermediates?)
Oh dear, more ignorance writ large ...
See the list of papers I provided earlier containing direct experimental tests of evolutionary hypotheses? The advent of multicellularity is one of those experimentally tested hypotheses. See the paper above by Boraas et al
(1998), in which this occurred in the laboratory and was observed taking place.
b) single-celled animals evolve?
Look up "endsymbiont hypothesis". Lynn Margulis has won awards for her work in this field.
c) fish change to amphibians?
Look up the palaeontological evidence provided by tetrapod fossils. And also various papers on HOX genes and their applicability to the evolution of the vertebrate limb. A particularly good one being:
Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb
by Paula M. Mabee, Journal of American Zoology
Oh look, once again, real scientists
have done the work.
d) amphibians change to reptiles?
Well one important development was that of the amniotic egg. See this textbook
for more on this. Since the requisite information is now part of a university textbook, you can again regard the requisite steps as having been elucidated by scientists.
e) reptiles change to birds? (the lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc are all very different!)
Once again, look up the palaeontological sequences from theropods to true birds, and the data from molecular phylogeny with respect to this. Some good papers include:
1,2,3 = 2,3,4; A Solution To The Problem Of The Homology Of The Digits In The Avian Hand
by Günter P. Wagner and Jacques A. Gauthier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
5111-5116 (April 1999)
Basic Avian Pulmonary Design And Flow-Through Ventilation In Non-Avian Theropod Dinosaurs
by Patrick M. O'Connor and Leon P. A. M. Claessens, Nature
253-256 (14th July 2005)
The Morphogenesis Of Feathers
by Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz and Cheng-Ming chuong, Nature
308-312 (21st November 2002)
Pulmonary Function And Metabolic Physiology Of Theropod Dinosaurs
by John A. Ruben, Christiano Dal Sasso, Nicholas R. Geist, Willem J. Hillenius, Terry D. Jones and Marco Signore, Science
514-516, (22nd January 1999)
How did the intermediate forms live?
Oh dear, argument from incredulity and ignorance again.
You have enough scientific papers above to work with. Do your own homework for a change.
14 - When, where, why, how and from what did: a) whales evole?
Look it up, stupid. I've provided enough scientific papers above on various topics, it's about time you got off your fat arse and engaged in some intellectual effort yourself. Start with Kate Wong's article in the May 2002 edition of Scientific America
(pages 70-79) and work fom there.
b) sea horses evolve
Is this going to be an interminable series of "how did X evolve?" questions, the implication being that if I can't provide at least ten scientific papers on each subject, you're going to claim the question hasn't been answered? Only this would be typical of creationist mendacity in this regard. Anyway, try looking up "molecular phylogeny of the Sygnathiformes" for some answers. One relevant paper here being:
The Evolutionary History Of Seahorses (Sygnathidae: Hippocampus): Molecular Data Suggests A West Pacific Origin And Two Invasions Of The Atlantic Ocean
by Peter R. Teske, Michael I. Cherry and Conrad A. Matthee, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
c) bats evolve?
Going to bother doing any of your own homework sometime, or do I have to spoon feed you with everything, you lazy arsehole?
d) eyes evolve?
Look up the Pax6
gene. It's found in everything from nematode worms to humans, and has been established as the master control gene for eye morphogenesis. As covered in the paper I cited earlier by Walter J. Gehrig in the first list of papers.
e) ears evolve?
This is getting tedious. Got anything other than an endless stream of "how did X evolve" questions erected so as to make life deliberately difficult for any single person to answer, because no one person can cover all the relevant science in detail?
f) hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc evolve?
Dealt with feathers above in one of the papers I listed. Go look the rest up yourself and do your own fucking homework.
15 - Which evolved first (how and how long did it work without the others): a)digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to its own digestive juices (stomach, intestines, etc)?
I've listed enough scientific papers answering your blather above. Do your own fucking homework from this point on.
b) the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Dealt with that in the section on abiogenesis papers above.
c) the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
Are you serious?
There is no "perfect" mixture of gases to be inhaled, there is only what is in the atmosphere
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
See the above papers on abiogenesis and look up "RNA World".
e) the termite or the flagella and its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
Termites don't have flagella. These are structures found on single celled organisms such as bacteria. If you can't even be bothered to ask sensible questions, why should anyone continue engaging with someone as manifestly pig ignorant as you?
f) the plants or the insects that live on them pollonatte the plants?
Well since pollination was manifestly a later development, the plants came first. We have evidence of land plants dating back to the Silurian. Pollination was a late Jurassic invention.
g) the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply or muscles to move the bone?
What makes you think it was achieved in this simplistic, Lego style "build A then B" manner? Never heard of processes occuring simultaneously?
h) the nervous system , repair system or hormone system?
Since these are largely independent of each other, or at least began so, your question is meaningless.
i) the immune system or the need for it?
Look up "major histocompatibility complex". Which should educate you.You are, after all, manifestly in need of it.
try and remember the very first thing you were taught about evolution and what was repeated to you over and over:
that evolution is a 'fact', even before you were presented so called evidence. It stuck.
That's because it is an observed fact
, as those scientific papers I've presented above testify. Going to read any of them any time, bozo, or are you like many other creationists, with a sub-crayon literacy level that precludes you from doing this?