How does evolution explain the gaps?

Because it is not a simple undertaking.Do you think linguists know every stage - every form of every word - that Common Celtic went through on its way to modern Welsh? Of course not. Is linguistics therefore bunk?Do you know exactly where each of Our Lord's footsteps fell on the way to Calvary? No? Then your Crucifixion model is also bunk.We can give you the general outline of what you ask for. We can back up everything we say with evidence. We cannot provide you with a fossil skeleton of each individual, though.

I think you first have to explain how your challenge is meaningful. You could as easily have written this challenge: Or this one: Your challenge is just as invalid as these.We don't know everything and never will. Where the evidence is gone there is nothing that can be done to bring it back. Principles and theories are derived from existing evidence. To some extent those principles and theories can be used to reconstruct histories for situations where evidence is inadequate or absent.That there are some things we can never know because the evidence no longer exists is just something we have to accept, but the strength of a theory is a function of its evidentiary support, and not of how much other evidence might have been destroyed or made in some way unavailable.--Percy

I believe that you are going to need all the luck that you can muster, assuming that you don't avoid the challenge of tracing the transformation of a single species throughout time. Just name the species.If there are gaps in the timeline due to lack of scientific evidence, we'll declare it just a silly old theory. Understand that word theory? If you can give scientifc evidence that contradicts any part of the timeline, then the timeline will have that evidence removed, thus creating a gap.But to make it more interesting, you have to give your own timeline of the same species, step by step, with unreffutable corroborating scientific evidence too. The same rules apply. But as far as you're concerned, there is no possible way that your timeline will contain such gaps.Actually, I'll be a gentleman and give you the upper hand. You can not only choose the species, but I'll let you give your timeline first. How's that for fairplay?[This message has been edited by David unfamous, 02-24-2003]

So, I guess you were simply using empty (false) rhetoric.How surprising.Of course, since you have all the answers in your religious literature, perhaps you can provide the begats and begots from Adam to me.If you cannot, then surely your Faith is foundationless.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-24-2003]

How very interesting that I received four replies, not one of which had any real substance. We weren't discussing footsteps, or rocks, or even begats and begots, for that matter. We were discussing whether the TOE can be considered valid when remaining in the realm of science. I claim that the TOE must abandon the very science that evolutionists demand that proponents of creationism adhere to in order for the TOE to explain the existance of species today, as they relate to those that supposedly lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.Exactly how does one go about attempting to scientifically falsify an assertion of the TOE that is made when it concerns something that supposedly happened 100,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 years ago. I do not attempt to explain anything about rocks, or footsteps, or begetting, begatting, and begotting. I rather attempt to explain the existance of life based upon that which I know, namely, the Holy Scriptures. I do not attempt to use purely scientific methods to explain obvious Spiritual Truths any more than an evolutionist would attempt to use Spiritual Discernment to explain the concepts involved within Darwinian evolution.Whether evolutionists wish to admit it or not, there can be no doubt that the TOE must abandon truly scientific methods the further it moves back in time. What cannot be tested scientifically cannot withstand the test of true science and the TOE cannot withstand the test of true science, even using their own accepted definition of same. However, you are all free to attempt to prove me wrong in this matter. Just explain the scientific methods that would be used to test the TOEs' claims concerning events that supposedly occurred 100,000 let alone 1,000,000 years ago. Have at it!ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstein[This message has been edited by Jet, 02-25-2003]

My pick of the species: Homo sapiens.Test 1: If evolution is true, then the human fossil record should show cumulative changes in some traits, in good correlation with the order of fossil ages.Result 1: The human (hominid) fossil record which spans from 7 million years ago (MYA) showed some general trends:
Increase in brain volume
Increase in height & body weight
Decrease in prognathismTest 2: If evolution is true, and modern humans are derived from other species, then Homo sapiens fossils should not be found in older strata than those species assumed to be its ancestors (after considering accidents of preservation and the possibility of ancestor coexisting with descendants).Result 2: No Homo sapiens fossils are found in rocks dated 2 MYA; instead we find australopithecus fossils. No human fossils of any species (Homo, Australopithecus) are found in 65MYA (Cretaceous) rocks; instead we find shrewlike mammals. No human (or mammal) fossils are found in Devonian rocks; instead we find Acanthostega, Ichtyostega, and other stem-tetrapods.That's two predictions based on paleontology, and both are confirmed in accordance with evolution by the available facts. Scientific enough for you?

To expand on Andya's Result 2, lets look at those fossils:Ardipithecus ramidus
Approx. 4.5 mya
Proposed ancestor of hominids and chimpanzee
Lived in well forested regions
More chimpanzee like featuresAustralopithecus anamensis
Approx. 4 mya
Characteristics of tibia suggest bipedalism
Humorous quite human like though jaws were primitiveAustralopithecus afarensis
4 to 2.7 mya
Characteristics of pelvis suggest bipedalism
Species includes 3.2 myo fossil "Lucy"
Large teeth and chewing musclesAustralopithecus africanus
2 to 3 mya
Herbivorous, eating tough plant material
Jaw now like that of a human
Slightly larger brain than A.aferensis but still not advanced enough for speechAustralopithecus robustus
2 to 1.5 mya
Large robust skull
Flat face with little/no forehead
Sagittal crest for jaw muscle attachment
Larger teeth, well adapted to chewing
No indication of speech capabilityHomo habilis
2.2 to 1.6 mya
Simple handmade stone tools found with fossils
First hominid to migrate out of Africa
Brain size much enlarged, particularly near end of species life span
Some evidence of speech developmentHomo erectus
1.8 mya to 250,000 ya
Taller with a larger brain capacity
Gradual spread out of Africa
More refined tools
Used fire and lived in caves or huts
Enlarged nose
Definitely speech present
Sturdier and stronger than the modern human with massive jaws and huge molarsHomo sapiens (archaic)
200,000 to 500,000 ya
Link between H.erectus and H. sapiens sapiens
Smaller facial features and molars
Features intermediate between two speciesHomo sapiens neandertalensis
200,000 to 30,000 ya
Present in Europe and Middle East
Coexisted with H. sapiens archaic and H. sapiens sapiens
Longer face and a larger brain size
Large jaw and receding forehead
Heavy skeleton for large muscles. Much stronger than modern man
Ceremonial burialsHomo sapiens sapiens
120,000 ya before appearance outside Africa untill present
Average brain size
Features = modern manSo, we have Homo erectus fossils dated at 1.8 mya to 250,000 ya. They used tools and lived in caves or huts. No Homo sapiens have yet to be found further back than 130,000 ya.Corrections welcomed.

quote:

---

Jet:
How very interesting that I received four replies, not one of which had any real substance. We weren't discussing footsteps, or rocks, or even begats and begots, for that matter.

---

Your replies were meant to show the implausability of your "challenge." Speaking for myself, I meant to show you the double-standards employed by creationists. Your response essentially validates my position.It should be far easier for the creationist to name each and every parent, grandparent, etc. of any living individual than for an evolutionist to name all transitional species from "microbe to man" if for no other reason the fact that the creationist only has to deal with 0.0005% of the time that the evolutionist does.
That you blew it off as not sunstantive demonstrates your inability to live up to your own standards.

quote:

---

We were discussing whether the TOE can be considered valid when remaining in the realm of science. I claim that the TOE must abandon the very science that evolutionists demand that proponents of creationism adhere to in order for the TOE to explain the existance of species today, as they relate to those that supposedly lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

---

You can say that.You can even believe it.It does not make is so.The creationist relies upon attacks on evolution for 'evidence'. Claiming, for example, radiometric dating is wrong does NOT by any stretch of the imagination mean that the earth is only 10,000 yewars old.Can you not see that?Here is a claim by creationists:DNA equals shape.They say this in an attempt to minimize the impact of molecular phylogenetic studies indicating that evolution - even the dreaded macroevolution - has occurred.So, let us test the creationist claim:Whose DNA is more similar to a whales - a hippo's or a shark's?Answer that question and you will have a substantive answer (thank you RR and/or PP)

quote:

---

Exactly how does one go about attempting to scientifically falsify an assertion of the TOE that is made when it concerns something that supposedly happened 100,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 years ago. I do not attempt to explain anything about rocks, or footsteps, or begetting, begatting, and begotting.

---

That seems to be because you employ double standards and otherwise cannot 'explain' scientifically anything about creationism.

quote:

---

rathe I attempt to explain the existance of life based upon that which I know, namely, the Holy Scriptures. I do not attempt to use purely scientific methods to explain obvious Spiritual Truths any more than an evolutionist would attempt to use Spiritual Discernment to explain the concepts involved within Darwinian evolution.

---

And thus you dive headlong out of the realm of science and into the realm of the supernatural.Another layer of double standards.

quote:

---

Whether evolutionists wish to admit it or not, there can be no doubt that the TOE must abandon truly scientific methods the further it moves back in time.

---

I am always amazed at the supreme confidnce the creationists have - especially when dictating what it is evolutionists must or must not accept/understand/adhere to/etc...

quote:

---

What cannot be tested scientifically cannot withstand the test of true science and the TOE cannot withstand the test of true science, even using their own accepted definition of same.

---

Your point?One can test hypotheses. I did it all the time in graduate school. It does not require supreme knowledge or revelation. It does not require a time machine. It does not even require knowledge of a long litany of intermediates.
It just requires knowing what to look for, and apparently, the creationist does not know what to look for.

quote:

---

However, you are all free to attempt to prove me wrong in this matter. Just explain the scientific methods that would be used to test the TOEs' claims concerning events that supposedly occurred 100,000 let alone 1,000,000 years ago. Have at it!

---

I can give you along list of papers that do this. You can find them, too. Go to:http://www.ncbi.nih.govchoose 'publication' in the search menu. Type in some key words like Primate and evolution.I think you will be shocked at what you see, for it will quite contrary to what Sarfati and co. will tell you...

SLP: Whose DNA is more similar to a whales - a hippo's or a shark's?Answer that question and you will have a substantive answer (thank you RR and/or PP)FK: It was definitely RR. I have that argument archived. He also asked whether a bird's DNA should be closer to a bat or a snake. If I am a Creationist arguing common designer, I have to say "a bat". If I am an evolutionist, I have to say "a snake".FK

Surely, if you are an evolutionist you have to
say 'I don't know, let's check'

Jet,Are you already aware that the quote you use to sign off all your messages (emphasis mine): a passage which invites the reader to suppose that the Supreme Being is revealed in all the scientific evidence around us, continues with (all emphases mine): which states quite explicitly that there is no scientific evidence (not now, not ever) for God and in any event.."God is not an explanation" for the observations we make, a position completely at odds with your carefully selected quotation?And if so, why would you knowingly use a paragraph that was so blatantly out of context to give a misleading impression of what Greenstein had to say?PE

The implicit assumption of course is that the fossil evidence already indicates that reptiles and mammals share a more recent common ancestor than reptiles and birds. I have yet to see a Creationist come up with any kind of rational explanation for why bat DNA would more closely resemble snake DNA than bird DNA.FK

Actually, as an evolutionist, one would only make an implicit statement of fact if one had already checked...

That's what I meant ... the question is asked and you
say 'I don't know, let's check.'OR you cite the evidence if you have already checked

But if the question is about DNA, you need to check
and see what the results are. You can compare that to
other lines of evidence after as a cross-check.