evolution explained

Scientific American has a nice point by point explanation of evolution, responding to creationist arguments.
Also on the evolution-creation argument, new discoveries have strengthened the case for evolution. Sharon Begley of the Wall Street Journal discusses a discovery of a fossil that seems to fit the criteria for being a answer to the well-known 'missing link' criticism:

paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods.

Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago said that it is "both fish and tetrapod."
Creationists have argued that this new discovery doesn't satisfy them at all. It is simply the discovery of a new species. Where are the links between fish and this species, or between it and land-dwelling animals? Where is the evidence that it in fact led to new land-based species?
This, of course, uncovers the futility of the whole evolution-creation debate. Creationists complain that that there is no 'missing link.' But, in a bizarre variant of Zeno's paradox, whenever such a link is found, new links are called for to link the links, and new evidence demanded. Unless paleontologists unearth a fossil for every variant of every species that ever existed (which is impossible), missing links will abound- not because the theory is wrong, but because fossils are haphazard and rare.
The creationists have moved the goalposts after the goal is scored, and called 'No goal'. This situation really does expose the lie that the debate is one founded on empiricism or rationality.
The mapping of the chimpanzee genome was more than just a cause for champagne. It provided the opportunity for some very specific, new tests of evolution. Mutation rates are a cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Well, it turns out that evolution really needs mutations to occur at a certain rate in order to work properly. Once you know what the rate should be, you can calculate what proportion of mutations you should find for any particular population size. Now that the chimp genome is known, the mutation/population ratio could be examined. Would it be in keeping with the predictions of the theory of evolution? I know you're on the edge of your seat. Maybe evolution got proven wrong! No, when the numbers were crunched, the mutation rate was in proportion to the chimpanzee population size as predicted by the theory. So evolution passed again.
The response from creationists? None. This is because mathematical modelling is not on their radar. Compare the silence to the typical response you'd get from a rival camp of scientists. Imagine there are scientists who believe, not in evolution, but in a revamped Lamarkism. They would work around the clock to show that their own theory predicted exactly the same numbers. And for good measure, they'd show that Lamarkism predicted a whole bunch of other stuff. The gauntlet would be down. That's how rival scientific theories fight it out.
But evolution isn't up against a rival scientific theory. It's up against an anti-scientific theory that chooses, as one method of attack (but only one of many), to try to criticize science on its own terms. Productive scientific debate is not on the agenda.