"1) Darwin predicted that many fossils would be found that would show transitional life-forms. These have not been found. In fact, there is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. "


a simple biology class would tell you that genetics cab provide for a rapid "evolution."

People have had a hand in "evolving" hundreds of kinds of dogs by mating to produce differences. All of the skeletal remains of the various dogs would seem to mean that they are vastly different but we know they are not.

Who knows how man "evolved" - it could have happened that two species of cave people got together to create a new one. We see this everyday.

Religious fanatics would cringe at the idea that Adam and Eve were cavemen (unless,of course, they had blues eyes and blonde hair even though it is 100% likely they came from Africa.)

It is not hypocritical and in fact that is not how most Christians feel (that he is "out of the picture"). I'm not sure where you learn about Christian teachings, but wherever it is your source is deeply flawed. This world is fallen and there is disease, evil people, etc etc. I won't get into the details because chances are you won't understand it based on your post.

I've been to several funerals unfortunately and have never heard "God needed more angels" or anything equivalent. Not ever, not once. And "God took his only soon so he knows how you feel" does not fly in the face of teachings. This alone is basis for how clueless you are on this subject.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

crucial fiction hits it out of the park.

Brainwashing...one doesn't have to believe in creationism or be a christian fundamentalist to question evolution...there are huge holes in that theory, and whenever you mention them all you can get in return is a critique of christianity by a non-christian...sad

__________________
"You sound like a gen-x coffee house dick" - From the outtakes to Office Space

For 15 years, Solly Lord Zuckerman, a distinguished British anatomist led a team that examined Australopithecine fossils, monkeys, apes and man. His conclusion was that Australopithecines were not ancestral to man, nor habitually walked upright. Yet this creature plays a key role in evolutionary explanation of origins.
There is no clear boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Below the neck, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are virtually identical.
Archaeopteryx is NOT half-dinosaur, half bird. Here is an interesting article on the University of Berkeley website...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
Also many scientists are starting to question Archaeopteryx...
And yet we've found so many ancient fossils intact, but no transitional ones. Odd coincidence, don't you think?
Which species are you referring to?

Tree diagrams? Hardly solid evidence. Tree diagrams only represent a best guess of how species are related to other species. In fact, scientists are constantly changing them and re-classifying species as they gather new data. You would be hard pressed to find two biologists who completely agree on a given diagram. Remember, that's one reason why Evolution is still just a theory.

This is an argument of molecular evolutionists. However, it is improbable for a new gene to evolve by this manner. Molecular biologists have calculated that the mutation rate is between one per million and one per billion per nucleotide per generation. Even molecular evolutionists admit that partially new genes en route to evolving fully functional new genes (called incipient genes) have no selection value in evolution and are not preserved , so only fully formed genes could be selected.

Personally I like what Darwin had to say about the Cambrian Explosion...
Someone once "proved" that if you had a team of monkeys working around the clock banging randomly on typewriters, that after billions of years, one of them would eventually type The Complete Works of Williams Shakespeare with no spelling or punctuation errors. This nonsense has since been discredited. This is the kind of mathematical probability we're talking about.

I mean by what mechanism does a new trait orginally appear in a chromosome. How is this trait "chosen" (for lack of a better word)?

Great theory. But until you find the transitional fossil that proves this, that is all it remains - a theory. And in my humble opinion, if such a fossil was going to be found, it probably would have been found already. The oldest known frogs, salamanders and cæcilians are very similar to their living descendants.

nice try - doesn't work - major flaw wth the literal teachings when innocents are involved.

try again.



_______________________________

"Why We Won" - "Why Rebellion Lost" - Politicalforum Postings

I have said we haven't found the human-ape link yet. Australopithecines are not that link, they are a slight branch-off from the missing link to us.

You still insist upon the fact we have found no transitional forms. How precisely do you define a transitional form? Archaeopteryx has feathers and looks like deinonychus, as your link says. I'm afraid I don't know the name of the half-worm half-insect, but I'll try and find out. But I'll list a few more transitional forms- ferns are half-way between algae and vascular plants.

And one of the good things about science is we accept when we are wrong. That is why people are questioning parts of evolution. I don't think anyone has found the slightest bit of evidence that the concept of evolution itself is flawed. And kaladrew, you're right, the most common form of evolution right now is "punctuated equilibrium" I seem to have forgotten to mention it. It basically says that evolution occurs very slowly, but sometimes acts in giant spurts when there is some kind of catalyst, such as an extinction level event.

The proof that monkeys could type out Shakespeare was much more akin to your argument than mine. He used mathematical probability, as did you. The program found steps that would improve the eyespot over time and become a human eye. Each of those steps could be shown to be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view.

Your molecular argument stumbles me however, I know relatively little about the specifics of biochemistry, only general facts. I don't doubt that you're right, we are missing a lot of knowledge about the world around us.


And one new point. You say we've found a lot of fossils, but no transitional forms. Now we all know that we've found fossils of animals that don't exist today and we haven't found fossils of some animals that exist today. So where do these animals which exist today come from? They either evolved or were created right? But if they were created how did they appear? Did an ancient human just walk along and have a herd of cows just pop into existance in front of him?

Creationism, 'scientific' creationism, 'intelligent design theorists' all that nonsense is propaganda put forth by hardline Christian groups that want to inject thier religion into our childrens science classes.

All that that I previously stated IS NOT science nor will it EVER be science. It's all due to the fact that for these hard line christians (notice I'm using the hard liner/extreme christian example here. Not most everyday moderates.) they already have all of thier conclusions on how EVERYTHING was, is and should be. Yup that's right the bible. Then they go out and say that they're right because they have a 'fact' that supports what the bible says. That is not science.

I don't care who has questions about evolutions. Hell I have questions that can't be directly answered so that's all well and good.

But what I won't do is sit idly by while some religous extremist tries to inject his set of stories, and myths into the public education system as science.

This argument has stood COUTNLESS tests by the Supreme Court of the United States no matter what these wackos want to call it, creationism, scientific creationism, intelligent design theory...they're all just christian myths trying to be pushed on public school children as science and it's wrong.

ok bye

Many people of many different religions or no religion question the theory of evolution. A Christian does not have to disprove evolution in order to be a Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive. Many people think that evolution makes no sense without the guidance of a higher power. You seem to think that anyone who does not believe in evolution is a Christian. However, evolutionists often do feel the need to disprove creationism. Is it possible to disprove either theory?

Most of the arguments as to what to include in science classes are put forth in order to teach all the theories of the origins of mankind as theories and not facts. A Christian, Muslim, Jew would hardly enjoy their children being taught that there is no God. Even religious extremists don't try to have the Bible taught as fact in public schools. But, there are plenty of Christian haters who will try to teach that it is fiction.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

Way to go, instead of DEFENDING evolution, which is what this thread is about (see title), you attack christianity.

Try if you can to seperate the two issues. The fact that you aren't a christian and don't like christians for whatever reason or don't believe in their theories, that isn't the issue. That is often the way this silly debate is played out, but try to focus on the real issue of whether evolution has any merit.

I'm waitin'

__________________
"You sound like a gen-x coffee house dick" - From the outtakes to Office Space