a $2,000 Reward ...to the first person(s) who can provide clear empirical fossil evidence (published in a good peer-reviewed journal) demonstrating that there has ever occurred : a continuous (fairly gapless) series of descendantly related species which make a gradual, transitional, species-to-species bridge between any two classes or orders of plants or animals.

• If the descendant relationship exhibited through gross bodily structures (such as bones) in fossils is questionable, then the genetic (DNA) relationship would need to be demonstrated to show the change in the genomes. (99% of what is significant about the biology of an organism, is located in its soft anatomy and genes).

• (and, yes, I am aware of K. Hunt's article about transitional fossils, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html ...but Hunt only offers a supposed lineup of families of animals --but does not provide evidence that those families are descendantly related through a fairly gapless series of related species, and certainly does not provide a gapless species-to-species series between two classes or orders.)

OR,

a $2,000 Reward ...to the first person(s) who can provide clear empirical evidence (published in a good peer-reviewed journal) that even one new complex bio-mechanism (eg, a flagellum, a cilium, or a light-sensitive spot) --comprised of at least four different new types of functional proteins which assemble together to function as well-matched and coordinated interacting mechanical parts-- has ever evolved in any species in nature. The new bio-mechanism must be totally as a result of the origination of at least 4 new protein-types (coded by new genetic material (DNA) in the genome) not previously existing in the original ancestor(s). The new proteins and the new mechanism must be beneficial to the organism's survival, and not deleterious or destructive to any of its other bio-mechanisms or life-functions;

• (Mere Polyploidy, Gene-Doubling, splicing, and Recombination alone do not satisfy the above requirements, because they do not constitute the origination of totally new genetic information which produces new types of proteins, but only the multiplication, re-combining and additions of old information coding for previously existing types of proteins).

• The above requirements for new, functional DNA information in larger genomes are reasonable, because today's general theory of neo-Darwinian evolution starts with non-living chemicals, going through abiogenesis, developing into proto-bacteria (with the smallest possible genome of life), to bacteria, & finally to the most advanced life-forms. All of this starts from no DNA, progressing to a minimal genome, and evolving up to the largest and most complex genomes. Such biological development would involve many steps of MACRO-evolutionary speciation, adding on many thousands of new protein types along the way. This is the overall scheme of Darwin's "general" theory of evolution, and this lengthy progression is what naturalistic Neo-darwinian evolutionists teach regarding the origin and development of the life-forms on earth (eg, see an evolutionary "tree of life")...

Any proof?

If not, an intelligent designer is most probably the best explanation for the origin of biological information. Also, intelligent design should be taught in schools on an equal footing along with ideas of evolutionary origins.

> > > Link to more Definitions and Explanation for WorldView Test Site's Reward

• Other Old Earth (& Universe) Creationist Sites:
• The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary - Dr. Joshua Zorn
  
• Old Earth Evidences - by Hill Roberts
  
• The Creation Date Controversy - by Dr. Hugh Ross - Addressing the "fears" of biblicists.
  
• The Origins Solution - Some sound answers in the creation-evolution debate.
  
• Christianity and Science Resource Center - Christianity is to be based on reality, facts and reason.
  
• The "SCIENCE SPEAKS" newsletter - God speaks through His creation.