Some Evidence Against Evolution

Seems like WILLOWTREE needs to take a course in taphonomy, the study of how fossils form.Let's imagine that you are living in east Africa a few million years ago, like Australopithecus africanus and similar species. You die, and what happens next?If some hyenas find you, there will not be much left of you when they were done; hyenas eat nearly all of a corpse, skin and bones and all.Other scavengers, like jackals, vultures, big cats, etc. may not eat your bones, but are likely to break and scatter them as they eat.And passing herds of ungulates will likely trample your bones, breaking them even further.And finally, small rodents and the like will gnaw at your bones, hoping to get minerals.So if you wish to be represented in the fossil record, you'd have to die near a stream and be washed out to some lake before your corpse either decays or gets consumed."Life" does get easier, because once you sink to the bottom of that lake, your bones are now as snug as a bug in a rug. Though your flesh will decompose, your bones will become buried by sediment carried into that lake by streams that empty into it.The sediment will gradually become turned into rock, with your bones inside of it; they may be re-mineralized by water flowing through it with dissolved minerals.But for come curious paleoanthropologist to find them, your rocky tomb will have to become lifted up by geological forces, where it can erode away, eventually revealing your bones.

However, special creation of organisms has NEVER been observed. Where is the film footage of the initial population of some new species being poofed into existence? By contrast, evolution has been observed under laboratory conditions, even though it's rather small-scale evolution.Let's look at horse evolution. Did it go like this:
*POOF!* Hyracotherium
*POOF!* Orohippus
*POOF!* Mesohippus
*POOF!* Miohippus
*POOF!* Parahippus
*POOF!* Merychippus
*POOF!* Dinohippus
*POOF!* Equus
?With each species being an almost exact copy of some earlier species?

How do creationists account for cross-purpose designs? If they had no a priori commitment to the hypothesis of a single creator of life, then they could easily conclude that there had been more than one. Here's an example: lions vs. zebrasJust today, I saw a recent National Geographic in a doctor's office, and looked at its article on zebras. It has a picture of a female lion chasing some zebras. One has to marvel at:How marvelously adapted lions are for catching zebras
How marvelously adapted zebras are for escaping lionsDoes this look like the work of a single designer or of more than one designer, one of lions and one of zebras? Or do the lions and zebras do their own "designing"?Also, male lions are known to kill the cubs of other male lions, notably the cubs of prides that they have just taken over. There's some video of such infanticide over at Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network SolutionsWhat does such fratricidal conduct do for the "good of the species"? Which is what one would expect from some designer of lions. However, it fits very naturally into the "selfish gene" concept -- a male lion who kills other male lions' cubs will more likely become a father than one who does not, because the female lions then go into heat and "volunteer" to be his cubs' mothers. But if lions acted according to the "good of the species", males would help raise other males' cubs instead of trying to kill them.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-01-2003][This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-01-2003]