Andrew, you said:
Quote:
|
The premise that evolution requires a single generation to produce something completely different (your frog example) does not fit in with the evolution model.
|
Ok, so that is probably cutting to the chase on this issue.
Firstly my Frog example did not specify the degree of change, only that it was sufficient to warrant a new (hypothetical) genus. It doesn't matter if the frog has been a frog for a million or so generations first, there must ultimately come a point (according to evolution) when the offspring of the frog is no longer a frog. Where oh where is the sound irrefutable evidence? The fossil record isn't exactly bulging at the seams with millions, or thousands or even hundreds or tens of transitional types. In about every case, a fossil is already fully whatever. The early horses for example were about the size of a dog, but they were still horses, not some transitional thing between a horse and a ???
That is what is lacking, not theories, just hard plain good old fashioned solid evidence. You or I might be content to accept certain things, however as I pointed out earlier, the PhD set can not universally agree on these things, and we lesser beings ought to respect the learning of both sides, but in all fairness place the unproven/unprovable things in the faith basket until............