One of the things that has confused me for a long time is the process of mutation and the fossil record.
The theory of evolution would have us believe that some long past creature developed wings so it could fly, escape enemies, and capture food. That horses developed long legs so they could run fast, and graze. That lizards lost their legs and became snakes so as to move faster in certain terrains. Or that wasps developed stingers to protect them from enemies. The list could go on and on. What underlying force or intelligence explains this? How would a wingless bird know how to grow wings? How would a short-legged horse know to grow larger legs to enable better mobility? How would any species "know" how to perfectly mutate the exact addition or alteration in body form which would give it the new capability? The staunch "scientific" view states that all genetic mutations were accidental, minor, and occurring over very long periods of time, and that things such as physical organs, entire bodily systems (circulation, nervous, etc.) and organic mechanisms (i.e. bee stingers, bat's sonar, human eye, etc.) developed as the result of extremely long series of genetic accidents (i.e. mutations) - one after another in an endless sequence of convenient mistakes. I find this more absurd than any notion that some external force created the various species and simply placed them here - whether that external entity be God, earlier advanced human civilizations with genetic capability, or some well advanced alien race.
Also, if the theory of evolution were true, it would be necessary to find remnants of all the unsuccessful mutations and adaptations which failed to compete successfully and eventually died out. But fossil records have not detected evidence of all or even any of these many failed species and biological versions which would have to be there if the theory of natural selection were true. Fossil records do find evidence of large global catastrophes such as the Ice Age, which wiped out entire species, but this is not the same thing discussed in the incredibly drawn out processes of evolution and natural selection. The evidence is just not there. In the end, people believe these theories just as they believe any thing else which has no real basis in fact - and in this way it takes on the color of a "religion" more than "science". "Faith" is defined as "belief in things unseen or unproven by sense evidence". There is much more of this faith sort of thing in the believers of evolution and Darwinism than anything approaching valid "scientific evidence" - although they would like to think and will vehemently claim otherwise.
Where are all the missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don't exist. This is true for every species and sub-species. The absence of these life forms puts the entire theory into severe question. So how can the ideas be accurate?
Now to be fair I linked an opposing viewpoint from wikepedia.
The problem still remains though. While there is evidence of what appears to be complete mutations within a species there is a noticeable lack of evidence for the transitions from one form to another. What I mean to say is while we are presented with complete fossils, say Archaeopteryx, for example, what we are not presented with is the fossil of this bird transitioning into modern day birds. We have a complete life form evolving into another complete life form. Let me put it another way so I'm not misunderstood.
Let's say for example a dirt road evolved into a modern super highway. We show pictures of the dirt road and then pictures of the super highway or Interstate. How did it become an Interstate? Where are the pictures (fossils) from the in between times of it's evolution? Where are the pictures of it becoming a paved road, then a four lane highway, then having round abouts (overpasses) added to it's modern form as an Interstate?
This is the conundrum that is faced by evolution. Where are the transitional vestigal wings? We have certain birds that are flightless, like the Ostrich, Emu, and Kiwi birds, but where are the in between fossils that show them losing their flight ability? How much more likely is it that in fact there were no mutations (since there is so far no conclusive fossil evidence) and what we have fossil records are in fact complete animals within a species that never evolved, they simply shared similarities within their own species?
This is the problem I am having with the fossil record. Now I have stated in the past that I do believe in Evolution but with the apparent lack of fossil evidence when it comes to transitional mutation I am forced to re-evaluate my position.
Also some scientists have put forth the notion that it's not outside the realm of possibility that life could have been created on Earth by extra-terrestrial beings. They simply balk at the use of the term "God", but otherwise have no apparent problem with the notion.
The video below is of well known Atheist Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein.
Also the problem exists as to why some species have evolved and other have gone unchanged since the Cretaceous Period, some 165-45 million years ago (as measured by modern science).
The Theory of Evolution says that all life forms are in a constant state of evolution but the Coelacanth defies that notion. How is it possible?
One solution can be found here.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Life is very complex even at the molecular level. Yet somehow all these mutations are convenient accidents according to evolutionists.
So you can see my dilemma.