[DWar]

"If genes were rocks then you would be correct. Like stones slowly weathered into sand, genes would be eventually degraded into a completely disordered informationless state. However genes are not rocks. Genes that are degraded through mutation are eliminated through death of the individual unlucky enough to posess them. Genes that retain there usefulness are preserved through reproduction. Then the select few that become even more usefull are preferentially multiplied."

We all understand the 'theory'. But it cannot be demonstrated in nature and so remains propaganda. The presumptions of the darwinist interpretation of the fossil record are laughable. READ the article above. There is no evidence of any transitional forms. None in the living world. None in the fossil record. None in the cellular world. Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms?

[gore3000]

Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms?

Yes indeed. Are we to believe the evolutionist's childish excuse that 'the dog ate the homework'?

[GeekDejure]

Why would eons of biologic evolutionary processes have simpliy ceased leaving no trace of evolutionary forms?

. . . um . . . er . . . oh yeah, they're democrats, eh? ;-))

[beavus]

There is no evidence of any transitional forms

Lung fish? Mudskippers? Homo habilis? Australopithicus? Archeopteryx? Volvox?

Anyway despite numerous examples both living and fossilized, the interviewee effectively disarms himself by (falsely) declaring that evidence of transitional forms would have to be found in soft tissue records which don't exist. This is an effective plea of ignorance on the subject, which is probably the only truth to emerge from the interview.