Barbarian observes:
Yes. If Darwin was wrong, there wouldn't be organisms that were intermediate between major groups. No Archaeopteryx, no Ambulocetus, no Acanthostega, etc.
But there are.
Sure:
One of the better Ambulocetids:
Note all the critical parts are existing in a single specimen.
Archaeopteryx:
Note the feathers, on a dinosauran body, with a few bird features. The genus was originally interpreted as a small dinosaur, until they found one with feather impressions.
Acanthostega:
Note the fishlike skull and vertebrae (including lateral line system on skull)
That is all fake my friend.
They lied to you about that. They actually exist.
If it really was real then it would be big news.
It was huge news.
And we all know the antics that evolutionist scientists go to.
Don't know what you mean, but this time at least you shouldn't have trusted whoever told you that story.
I can show you pictures of fossils that show NO change at all.
Well, that might be interesting. Let's see them. I can think of some possible cases, over maybe tens of millions of years.
In short, according to Darwinism, life must be like a tree, with a common root, subsequently splitting up into different branches. And this hypothesis is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept, phyla-the fundamental units of classification between living things-came about by stages, as in the diagram to the left. According to Darwinism, one phylum must first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes over very long periods of time. The Darwinist hypothesis is that the number of animal phyla must have gradually increased in number.
Pretty much what the fossil record shows. However, there should be period of rapid evolution when the envirionment changes. One such occured in the Precambrian, and an even greater one happened at the start of the Cambrian.
The diagram to the left shows the gradual increase in the number of animal phyla according to the Darwinian view.
Note that the Darwinian diagram you used shows that there are periods of higher diversification. That has always been part of the theory (you picked a very old example)
According to Darwinism, life must have developed in this way.
Not according to the Darwinian chart you picked. Did you look at it?
Definitely not. Quite the contrary: animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged.
Um, no. In the precambrian, extremely simple organisms appear, and become increasingly complex. There were no vertebrates, no plants, no fish, no crabs, no insects, no trees, no mammals. All that came gradually later. The first metazoans were rather primitive wormlike or jellyfishlike organisms. Then, just before the Cambrian, some of them evolved hard parts, and then a few evolved complete hard body coverings, and a rapid diversification occured.
They lied to you again.
All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age.
Wrong again. Some of them did. But some of them occured at the beginning of the Cambrian, and others before the Cambrian.
Glenn Morton (a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research, btw) has an interesting page, wherein he debunks the story they told you.
Evidences of macroscopic life forms are now found as early as 680 myr ago in the form of worm burrows (Pagel, 1999, p. 881). And several modern phyla are now claimed to appear in the Precambrian and thus are not part of the supposed 'Cambrian Explosion.' These are:
Phylum Porifera (Sponges Brasier, Green and Shields, 1997, p. 303)
Phylum Mollusca (Fedonkin and Waggoner, 1997, p 868)
(This may be a proto-Mollusc rather than a true mollusc--Campbell 2001)
Phylum Annelida (Cloud and Glaessner, 1982, p. 788)
Phylum Cnidaria (Conway Morris, 1998, p. 29)
Phylum Arthropoda (Waggoner, 1996, p. 190)
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in a 2001 article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."56 (harun yahya)
Stephen Meyer, as you probably know is not a biologist, but a member of the Discovery Institute, a religious organization, whose doctrine is the official position of the Unification Church of Rev. Myung Son Moon. Haran Yahya is a Muslim creationist, with no trace of any academic qualifications whatever.
In fact, scientists once thought that a rapid diversification of almost all phyla (they never actually thought that all of them showed up at that time, because a few did appear even later) in the Cambrian, over a few tens of millions of years. Then the Vendian fauna was discovered in the precambrian, and it was clear that things weren't so simple.
Apparently, Meyer never got the word. But then, he isn't a biologist, and probably never learned about it.
The theory of evolution maintains that different groups of living things (phyla) developed from a common ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time. The diagram above states this claim: According to Darwinism, living things grew apart from one another like the branches on a tree.
It's not just the fossil record that shows this. If you do a diagram, showing relative similarities of DNA or cytochrome C, you'll get the same diagram. Even Linneaus, a creationist, inadvertently produced this tree when he invented the modern system of nomenclature. The only way to explain this data is common descent.
But the fossil record shows just the opposite.
See above. You've been rather badly misled.
Barbarian observes:
If Darwin was wrong, populations would not change when environments changed. But they do.
Were did you get that from?
Direct observations. A good example of how rapidly evolution works when the environment changes can be found in
The Beak of the Finch. And it's very accessible to non-biologists.
If evolution was correct then there will be more people on this world then there are today.
I don't see how. But let's see your reasoning.
Barbarian observes:
This is why the overwhelming majority of life scientists are Darwinists; there is no other way that can be taken seriously.
Incidentally, it is not quite 99.9% Darwinists. If you accept the data from the Discovery Institute, and compare it to the sample from Project Steve, it comes out to about 99.7%.
Heres another video that might interest you. 'Lies In The Textbooks - Creationist Kent Hovind Reveals The Truth Abut Evolution.'
Since Hovind is in jail for among other things, lying, you surely understand that people aren't going to be giving him a great deal of credibility.
: 
