Quote
Why hasn't an evolutionist on here explained to me what I've repeated in my post umpteenth time now?

I will repeat - Where did evolution arise from, if it does not teach our origins as arising from simplicity? and becoming gradually more complex over long periods of time. If all organisms do not require the dramatic changes that we would have expected from this belief....where did they arise from in the first place?
Ok, I am not an expert but I will give it a try with an example. Geneticists have noted that on occasion during a reproduction of a cell, portions of the DNA are copied twice. If those portions are actively engaged in the protein production, the result is a possible doubling of the same structures in the organism. The organism is now more complex. This is possibly the source of the original bilateral symmetry. I would have to do some more investigation about what evolution biologists and geneticists know concerning this, but I do know that portions of DNA are double copied on occasion and if that double copying occurs in a reproductive cell, then new structures could arise, in the offspring. Even if there are single point mutations on DNA in a reproductive cell, new structures or changes in structures could occur in the offspring.

Quote
Unless you now want to change the theory due to lack of evidence that this ever occured?
Imperfect copying of DNA is evidence that complexity could arise from simplicity.

Quote
Quote
2. What part of the theory of evolution requires that an entire species/family of organisms go extinct in order for a descendant species/family to be established?

If it does not require it, why do they preach it happened without knowing whether one ascended from the other in the first place?.
I would consider "ascended" to be a bad choice of wording. It implies that one is "better" than the other. Since survival is so context sensitive, one trait difference would allow one group to dominate in a particular environment while allowing another group to dominate in a different environment. This very possibility would allow a new species to spring from and dominate a parent species in one environment while allowing that same parent species to remain dominant in a different environment. At that point, there are now 2 species when there used to be only one.

Quote
I can only imagine your theory will have to continue changing as new evidence is brought to light that contradicts it.
Theories do change as new evidence comes to light. Sometimes they are completely thrown out. The people who show conclusively, with compelling evidence, that a major widely accepted theory is wrong, win the Nobel Prize. I wonder why Hovind or Ham haven't won.

Quote
The difference between a population and a species??? Talking down to me again Linear! You have GOT to be kidding!

Population is made up by the inhabitants of the earth. Or inhabitants of a specific area. It can refer to the world, a country or a city. It's a collective term. Correct me if I'm wrong oh wise one.
Not meaning to talk down to you. You have it right. A population is a group of organisms. A population of a particular species is all or only part of that species. If a population of a species is separated from the rest of the species, changes in that population don't necessarily change the rest of the species. That is how a new species can come from a parent species without the parent species being completely wiped out. A trait that confers survival advantage would spread through the isolated population because the conditions in that population's location are different than that of the majority of the parent species.

Quote
Now if you wish to replace sarcasm with condescension? Do not expect to get much better in return. A non reply is actually what you deserved here.
Would you consider my reply above to be condescending? If so, what is condescending about it?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke