Here's the real fraud: there's no such thing as "transference" -- it's not a scientific term, it's a non-term perpetrated by anti-scientists. Think about that.
The fact is that no fish ever became a horse, indeed no fish ever became anything other than a fish.
So there was never, ever "transference" between fish and horse.
What actually happened, according to fossils and DNA is that some fish did and still do spend some of their time out of water.
Their descendants adapted more & more to land, and eventually left fish-like fossils we call something else.
Those descendants continued to adapt & diversify and in due time left fossils which we call something else -- proto-reptiles, birds, mammals etc.
My point is there was never a sudden "transference" from fish to something modern.
Instead the fossil record shows relatively small changes of many millions of years.
To cite examples, fossils said to be the earliest proto-mammals and proto-birds look very much like similar fossils which are identified as reptiles -- no "transference".
PapaNew: "Transference between animal groups is the kind of evolution required by Darwinism becasue it theorizes that all living things evolved from a single organism source.
But there is no evidence of this kind of transference.
That is why I say Darwinism is a fake and a fraud."
You have to remember that basic evolution theory consists of just two ideas: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
That theory has been confirmed innumerable times, and indeed is re-confirmed every day by scientists working in the field.
The further theory of common descent has also been confirmed innumerable times, especially in recent years with DNA analyses comparing changes in genetic codes of closely related, and not-so-closely related, species to calculate years since their last common ancestors.
These calculations are then compared and confirmed against fossil records to help clarify many species' evolution, evolutions which were previously obscure.
And contrary to what you imply here, there has never been a single serious falsification of basic evolution theory.
Therefore, all the "fake and fraud" is coming from somebody other than scientists working on evolution, pal.
PapaNew: "But evolution within a major animal group is another story, like the different breeds of particular types of mammals like wolves and dogs.
There is plenty of evidence of evolution WITHIN a particular type of animal or group but that type of evolution, but of course, that is not the kind required by Darwinism."
But there is no difference -- none -- between so called "micro-evolution within" species, and "macro-evolution between" species.
It is precisely the same thing, shorter term versus longer term.
Shorter term adaptions create new breeds, sub-species and species.
Continued over many more generations of separation and we see new genera, families, orders, etc.
There's no difference in the evolutionary processes, only the length of time they operate.
Remember the dividing lines between biological classifications are strictly human scientific constructs -- for examples, different species within the same genus usually can physically interbreed, but don't (i.e., some zebras), while those in different genera of the same family physically cannot interbreed successfully (i.e., Indian & African elephants).
Bottom line: as with basic evolution theory (descent with modifications and natural selection) the theory of common descent has literal mountains of fossil evidence and millions of DNA analyses supporting it, and not one piece of seriously falsifying data in now over 150 years.
And that's why evolution theory is considered "settled science", FRiend.
The critical difference between evolution within an animal type or group and Darwinist evolution, of course is evidence of actual links (I call “transference”) between the “before” and “after” whether over a short period or over millions of years. Darwinist evolution lacks such evidence and has been called pseudo science in the scientific community - it is anything but “settled.” Hence, I call Darwinism a “fake.”
The most glaring and relevant example of the lack of for Darwinism is man and the “missing link” (AKA missing evidence of transference) of monkey becoming man. There have been many hoaxes forwarded by Darwinists claiming to have found this “missing link”, including the so-called “Javaman” and Neanderthal Man”. Hence, I call Darwinism a “phony”.
Darwin himself, who began as a church-going Christin, died not having reconciled grave doubts about the unexplained but critical holes in his theory like these “missing links” (or lack of evidence of “transference”).
The only evidence of the origin of the species including man is physical evidence and the Bible (if you believe the Bible). True science and the Bible are friends. Since you don’t seem to argue against the tonnage of prima facie evidence for Intelligent Design, I can only guess that your argument is that God created man from the dust through evolution from primordial goo and put in all the necessary coding in that primordial goo to evolve into the different animal groups and man. That is not Darwinism per se, but again, if that is your interpretation of creation, it lacks any, much less a preponderance, of physical evidence of the critical “links”.
If you believe the Bible, then you believe God created man. The question is how. The Bible says God made everything, including man, by the Word (John 1:3), which he spoke when he said, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Gen 1:26).
The Bible says Jesus is the Word who came into the world that He had made (John 1:10). And Jesus demonstrated creating something out of nothing when he fed five thousand and four thousand men plus women and children with a few loaves and fishes (Matt 14:17-21, 15:34-38). All of this is Bible evidence that God created man in a way that we today would call a miracle - and he was to have dominion over all that God had created on previous “days” by his Word.
So, again, there is scant physical or biblical evidence that God created man to evolve from goo through monkeys to man. The fact that we really don’t know how God made man from the dust through his Word, doesn’t validate our attempts to fill in the gaps with our own explanations outside of sufficient evidence before us.
Although I find this subject interesting, the Bible is much more concerned about redemption than creation and is a revelation of Jesus, our Redeemer. Nevertheless, I also wanted to add that the Bible easily accommodates geological and fossil evidence of countless ages gone by that in no way contradicts the creation by his Word. The fossil record does not interfere with the Bible record of creation.