>>2120142When we speak of these mutations, you are right. They must be small and incremental over many generations, because according to all evidence drastic changes from one generation to the next result in harm to the offspring.
The problem occours when looking to the fossil record to find evidence for these small changes. Where there should be a continuous change between species, with no readily determinable demarcation between the species, there are only distinct kinds of animals and plants with no transitional forms present.
This evidenceforced an update to the theory to include periods of rapid evolution between long periods of genetic stability.
This new theory solves the missing fossils issue, but in doing so it ignores the original problem: a smooth, coninuous addition of new genetic material is nessissary for the process to work.
The worst discrepency comes in the cambrian explosion. The fossil evidince (if evolution is to be assumed as true) shows many cases of independant evolutionary paths leading to the same complex body structures like eyes and jointed legs.
This leads to a contradiction where evolution cannot accout for the addition of new genetic material.
