Hello Bex,

I don't think you understand my point yet.

Quote
It is very much the issue. The fact is, we have not seen evolution take place, nor has it been observed from fossils themselves, ...
The fact is that you have not seen it NOT take place either. Your pictures tell you squat. Take two brothers, one goes around the world while the other stays home. Can you tell from looking at the brother that stays home whether or not the other brother has gone around the world? Likewise pictures of cyanobacteria from 3.5 billion years ago, that look like the cyanobacteria around today does not mean that some descendants of those cyanobacteria went around the world while some stayed home.

Quote
... yet you conclude that it happened anyway ...
No, I don't conclude it happened anyway, I demonstrated that you are unable to prove that it has not occurred. If you are unable to prove it did not occur then your pictures do not show anything other than part of the natural history of this planet, a natural history that is better explained by evolution than by any other theory.

Quote
You have all come up with the most pathetic excuses possible, in an attempt to explain why the fossils show no sign or little signs of change.
The fact is that not one coelacanth species alive today is the same species as any of the hundreds of coelacanth species in the fossil record means that they are all de facto different from those fossils, that they are NOT the same, and your personal ability, or inability, to tell one from the other is irrelevant.

The degree of change is actually irrelevant to evolution.

Quote
lol! Even if the coelacanth is another species of fish, how on earth does this rule out that all these things have shown no sign of simplicity becoming complexity? Whether fish, other marine life, whatever it is, fully formed and most of what I provided is much the same or identical as the same today.
Perhaps because you are only looking at the brother that stayed home. The brother that went around the world is related to Tiktaalik rosea, one of several intermediate fossils between fish and tetrapods. It is like no animal alive today. Likewise archaeopteryx is not like any animal alive today, and demonstrates several features common with dinosaurs and several features common with modern birds. It is these common features that demonstrate evolution occurs (another reason why common features between fossils and modern life do not contradict evoltuion btw).

Quote
... whatever it is, fully formed ...
It may surprise you, but all organisms are "fully formed" -- a term that is really a tautology, if you think about it: no organism is not "fully formed" as the organism it is. It cannot be otherwise.

Quote
IT's not something becoming something else.
And that is not the way evolution works. Organisms don't "morph" into some new organism. You need to rid yourself of false ideas before you can begin to understand what evolution really is, I'm afraid.

I'll be happy to discuss what you expect evolution to accomplish, but you are going to need to define things a little more than "sign of complexity" ... or "something becoming something else" ... preferably using some terminology that biologist use (forlorn hope) rather than terms used by people that don't understand evolution.

Quote
The thing is, I do not need to prove a thing, the pictures have already given clear testament to the lack of evolution all by themselves. Clearly ...
the pictures actually show evolution, just in a broader scale than you acknowledge: they amply demonstrate part of the natural history of life on earth. You have no pictures of feathers from the Devonian period, nor of fish from the pre-cambian time.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]