Quote:

Depends on which kind of evolution you're talking about. Macro or micro. They both represent two different ideas.

Only to creationists. To biologists they are the same process with the distinction that macro evolution describes a change from one species to another, whereas micro evolution occurs intra-species. However, the process, mutation and natural selection, is the same.

Quote:

And that's all without having to tackle the problem of a lack of ADDED genes. I know why you're getting confused, because genes and DNA are constantly in transition in nature.

Speaking of confusion: genes are just a certain arrangement of bases. Rearrange the bases and you either get more or less genetic information (depending on whether you end up with junk DNA or something that can be expressed).

Quote:

But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have beneficial mutations.

And what do you think prevents beneficial mutations ? There is no filter that allows harmful mutations but prevents beneficial ones. Just like there is no filter that allows intra-species changes but prevents inter-species ones.

Quote:

Both of which still won't allow for the addition of new features to existing animals. Faulty genes don't produce wings, they simply remove the wings.

It seems that you automatically equate mutation with faulty. It just means change. If the change is harmful to the organism it won't be inherited, if it's neutral or beneficial it's got a chance to be inherited.

Quote:

Evolution requires 'uphill' evolution in order to explain how a bacteria can become a fish. A new species being created lacks an explanation for how that becomes possible.

A new species being created (i.e. macro evolution) is just a side-effect; albeit one that happens quite frequently.

Quote:

This entire statement becomes null when I ask, "How did this happen?" I know your answer, evolution, but we need to get straight to the root of the problem and explore whether or not evolution is possible. Once we get that ironed out, then we can deal with the fine print.

The answer to this is quite obviously "yes it is possible, as evolution occurs in nature and laboratories all the time". However, you seem to have a very specific form of evolution in mind: "adding new visible intra-species features to mammals". For general evolution bacterial resistance and drosophila speciation provide examples that can easily be reproduced.

Quote:

I'm not going to get into how scientists in the past have made MONUMENTAL mistakes when evaluating fossils. That's important to know that in hundreds of documented cases, scientists have been wrong about fossils time and again

..and who discovered these mistakes? Right, scientists. And you are claiming that even though specific instances of mistakes or outright fraud have been identified these same scientists are unable to notice that their entire field is wishful thinking ??

Quote:

Evolution isn't science, because science deals with what can be 'proved.' With the exception of theoretical sciences, but those are called theoretical for a reason.

Actually it's the other way around, only theoretical sciences have proofs, empirical science has evidence and can't have proof.

Quote:

We have lizards with wings, no doubt, but you're the one who isn't willing to accept the possibility that it was created that way.

..and your evidence for creation out of nothing is ?

Quote:

If that were an intermediate animal, then the wings would have to be useless.

Who says they have to be useless ? All that is required is for them to not be harmful and to not prevent birth so that their plan remains in the genepool. If they are beneficial to the organism, so much the better since then its chances of having more offspring with the same changes improves.