EccentricM wrote: ... no mid-species transitions were ever found, only full species. As such they made the erronous claim that "certain species were the missing links"(?) despite having no evidence that was even the case, but said it was anyway.
This could not possibly be more wrong. It is a classic case of creationist ignorance. The fossil record contains an embarrassment of riches of transitional species. Two of the best examples are the transition from lobe-finned fish to tetrapods and the journey of land mammals to whales.
The transition from reptiles to mammals is also very well documented in the fossil record.
For hundreds of other examples see Prothero - 'Evolution, What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters'.
Later with genetics they found.. oh, all life shares DNA, and so they say "aha, that confirms it, it's all true". What they did not consider is that we are all simply made.. from the same materials, hence, DNA (ingrediants) being the same, but no "lineage" like in direct human ancestry has ever been detected or studied.
Again the ignorance (and spelling) is painful.
If we did not have a single fossil the comparison of DNA would prove common ancestry. The evidence has nothing to do with the fact that all living things share a common code, it is the specific similarities, differences and common errors that matter.
Imagine you are a teacher correcting the homework of a group of students. If they all wrote that the Battle of Hastings happened in 1066 that would only suggest they all properly read the same textbook. There is only one way to get the answer right but there are an infinite number of ways to get it wrong. If 3 pupils all said that the answer was 1977 then you would have very strong evidence of copying. If you found many such identical errors in the same 3 papers you have proof. DNA comparison is a bit like this.
Cytochrome C comparison is one very good example (which many creationists wilfully misunderstand)
If you bring up the current state of "statis of evolution" as well as living fossils as an argument, they shall say "not all life forms evolve if they don’t need to, hence why we have “living fossils”, life forms that have not changed at all for billions of years, and we have many of them". This idea I think seems to contradict evolution. Why? Because something does not change if it does not need to, it only adapts to it’s needs to survive.
Nothing in the history of life EVER adapted. NEVER. NOTHING. NOT EVEN ONCE.
If a species exists in a stable environment then there is no selective pressure and mutations are not favoured by Natural Selection. This does not contradict evolution, it is precisely what evolution predicts. It does contradict a common creationist misunderstanding of evolution.
So… why evolve in the first place? Was the first micro-organism in danger? Could it not survive in the sea by staying at it was?
Again this is predicted on the error that individuals adapt to circumstances by evolving. There is no intention in evolution. Random changes are selected if they give an advantage to the individual that hosts it. If resources are scarce then individuals who are better equipped to survive AND reproduce will leave more copies of their genes in the gene pool. If resources are plentiful selection pressure is less or even non-existent.
Evolving means to adapt and change in accordance to one’s enviroment,
No it doesn't. Repeating this trope doesn't make it true. Nothing adapts to its environment.
but if all life came from a single cell, which includes said enviroment, that means there was nothing to adapt or respond to in the first place, which should incur stasis.
If anybody can explain this sentence I will be happy to comment.