BrandtMichaels: "You may think that evolution is all solid and proven science but it is clearly a lot of assumptionms mixed w/ conjecture and only a tad little bit of micro-evolution."
{sigh}, I'll say it all again:
Science in these matters consists of facts (=confirmed observations), hypotheses (=unconfirmed explanations), and theory (=confirmed explanations).
The facts (=confirmed observations) include 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
The theory (=confirmed explanation) simply projects these facts backwards in time millions and billions of years and concludes that all, or nearly all, life on earth descended from common ancestors.
This theory is confirmed by evidence in the fossil record, in DNA analyses and by inputs from nearly every other branch of science.
Several hypotheses (=unconfirmed explanations) have been proposed for the origins of life itself.
These include different methods of abiogenesis, panspermia and (potentially) intelligent design.
None of these hypotheses are confirmed, but laboratory work has been reported on possible routes to abiogenesis.
Now, if you'll note carefully, I never used words like "proven" or "solid".
Instead, I said that observations can be "confirmed" and that makes them facts.
Hypotheses which you may describe as "conjecture" need to be much more than that from the beginning.
They need to be based on confirmed observations, and a good hypothesis needs to explain what is known.
A hypothesis can be confirmed, making it a theory, by predicting future discoveries such as those found in fossil records and DNA analyses.
It can also be confirmed by data from other branches of science, such as radiometric dating of geological strata and astronomical estimates of the age of the Universe.
So a confirmed theory is far more than "a lot of assumptions mixed w/conjecture...".
BrandtMichaels: "Considering the complexity of DNA proves clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt that one kind does not re-program itself into yet another kind.
If it were so, you would have to find millions upon millions of transitional fossils showing half formed mutant creatures AND mutated creatures that you would also find among the living life forms."
Nonsense.
The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs of DNA, in which the natural rate of mutations can be measured by comparing DNA's amongst closely related human kin, tribes and ethnic groups.
These DNA differences add up to perhaps one-half of one-tenth of one percent of all 3 billion DNA base pairs.
And that is just what you'd expect if our common human ancestors lived about 200,000 years ago.
More distant relatives (i.e., Neanderthals or chimpanzees) can also be compared, and the number of mutations counted up.
These comparisons show Neanderthals with about 3 million DNA differences (=.1%) and chimps with 30 million differences (=1%).
And these correspond to fossil records suggesting common ancestors with Neanderthals about 700,000 years ago, chimpanzees about 7 million years ago).
My point is: evidence is consistent with theory.
As for "transitional fossils", I'll say it again: every fossil is "transitional" between whatever went before it, and what may have come after.
And, for pre-human species alone, we have fossils or bones of about two dozen:
Bottom line: every generation descends with some modifications, but "natural selection" -- aka, "survival of the fittest" -- is what prevents, in your words, "millions upon millions of transitional fossils showing half formed mutant creatures AND mutated creatures that you would also find among the living life forms."