Do fossils disprove evolution?

Your joking right Dr Adequate. If you want to impress someone lets see you simulate creating life from nothing.

I'll make it easy on you. Lets see you prove how to create significant new information from a blind non-thinking source.

Thats not new information from a blind non-thinking source. It was brought to fruition by a team of the most brilliant minds in the world.

Its just like Dawkins thinking he simulated evolution on a man-made computer.

You people are patheticly desperate.

The knees of Darwinism are wobbling and its only a matter of time before the hand of truth is going to slap you down!

One thing before I go. (Oh, and thanks for the friendly debate)
I was just wondering what that antenna had to do with new information
to the Genome. The answer is nothing.

Both sides should be discussed, absolutely. The problem with Darwinism is that it is all smoke and mirrors. Where is the evidence that the sorts of incidental changes required for large-scale evolution ever occur? The evidence simply isn't there. Imagine what would happen to the germ theory of disease if scientists never found any microorganisms or viruses that produced diseases. Thats the problem with Darwinism. In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex biological system could REALISTICLLY have emerged, Darwinism offers handwaving just-so stories of how such systems might have emerged...in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality.
Why, then does Darwinism continue to garner such a huge following, especially amoung the intellectually elites such as many of you folks?
Two reasons: 1) It provides a materialistic creation story that dispenses with any need for design or God (this is very convenient for those who want to escape the demands of religion, morality, and conscience) 2) The promise of getting design without a designer is incredibly seductive--its the ultimate free lunch.

Here is the perfect example of the smoke and mirrors trick you guys try to pull all the time.
Lots of small changes do not equal a huge leap into another brand new species. This has NEVER been observed and never will be because it is impossible.

If you think massive new information to the Genome is not required to produce a new feature in an organizm I highly recommend you head down to the libraries you keep refering to

HO HUM.....OK, your right Coyote. The fossil record is chocked full of transitional forms that are undisputable

and the science labs are bustling with scientist's and their mountians of proven tests of how to generate significant new information to a Genome.

I mean, we have observed Macro-evolution in so many studies

its a miracle no one in the world has ever heard of it.

Ohh, no more questions here Coyote. I'll just sit down and shut up after being put in my place like that.

I'm not even close to being wrong pal. You are the one trying to take the focus off the issue by bringing up the definition of kind. Its all part of the Darwinist trick. Lets blurr the definition of kind so we can avoid the issue.

Its a proven fact that most mutations are either harmful or neutral, first of all.

ICDesign writes:Its a proven fact that most mutations are either harmful or neutral,first of all.

A dog has been and always will be a dog.