[scripter]

I've studied many areas of science including evolution and I can only shake my head at those die-hards who insist phyletic (gradual) evolution is a fact.

As I see it, there is zero evidence of phyletic evolution. If we really evolved from common ancestors, to me the evidence says punctuated equilbria or special creation are the only possible theories.

[muawiyah]

Epigenetics combined with as yet unknown ways to accomplish transfer of genes between unrelated species probably accounts for all of it ~ and then, too, DNA is probably engaged in its own examination, analysis and solution to biological problems and may be thought of as self-assembling itself rather than simply being a passive vehicle for an invisible magical force called "Natural Selection".

Admit it guys, changes in DNA are more akin to mixing paint with a super computer, and far removed from cows chewing cud.

[Sirius Lee]

If we really evolved from common ancestors, to me the evidence says punctuated equilbria or special creation are the only possible theories.

I'd throw in epigenetics -- used to be called Lamarckism -- into the mix.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—As I see it, there is zero evidence of phyletic evolution. If we really evolved from common ancestors, to me the evidence says punctuated equilbria or special creation are the only possible theories.-—

I have come to the same conclusion from examining the evidence.

I bitterly resent the speculations (artistic depictions of human evolution, evolutionary trees) and outright frauds (Haeckel’s embryo’s) passed off to me as fact in govt school in the late 1970s.

[Triple]

“there is zero evidence of phyletic evolution” - S

Are you familiar with the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny?

Do you think it is evidence of anything?