Some Evidence Against Evolution

I meant modern apes ... sorry.

You have resonded comprehensively to my topic and posts - thank you.
I am preparing a response, my computer is down and I am using a public terminal at present. W.T.

The misconception is so thick in here you could cut it with a monkey.Evolution is a fact. Evolution can be aptly defined as the change in allele frequency over time, and that behavior is an indisputable scientific fact. Allele frequency does change with time, both in man-made and natural systems. We've sequenced the DNA or organisms (hundreds of thousands of times, by now, for some species like drosophila), and watched the allele frequencies change with time. There is no room for any debate on the issue.

You sound like a religious fundementalist with a closed mind. If I had answered the way you just did you would be saying the exact same thing about me that I just said about you. Why don't you post a little evidence, just a little I mean we are not talking about the uncontested existence of gravity you know.

You do know that gravity is only a 'theory' too?Brian.

I am so far behind in the responses you deserve. First, the museum is a few miles from Teddington so how is this so inaccurate ?
I do not want to ignore everything you have posted, but I do want to get right to the heart of my original complaint, I still have a larger response coming to everything you have taken the time to post.Richard Leakey quoting fellow paleontologist David Pilbeam : "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we've got he'd surely say "forget it;there isn't enough to go on". Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from evidence that is so incomplete" {"Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton}Question: Is there really enough transitional bones already found to prove that mankind evolved from apes ?

Milton is not a crank, he just has a brain that asks the hard questions.If you are current on the status of paranormal research then you know that no credible scientist questions the existence of the paranormal. The only questions in this subject is how and why.

I have not intentionally ignored the exhaustive evidence you have posted. It was impressive. The issue is what does it mean and is there enough evidence to justify evolution on the scale you purport it to be ? This is a quick reply I will finish the respones you deserve soon. Thank You.

Milton is a crank who has no idea whereof he speaks. Dawkins points this out at Review of Richard Milton: The Facts of Life: Shattering the myth of Darwinism, it's reinforced by his incredibly poor performance in the debate enshrined at Debate between Richard Milton and Jim Foley, and Larry Moran recently pointed out some of his crackpot ideas at Re: Milton's _Shattering the Myths of Darwinism_Erk? Could you please back up this incredible assertion? AFAIK most credible scientists acknowledge a faint possibility that paranormal phenomena may exist, but certainly nobody has provided strong evidence that it does exist.

As a research psychologist, I'd amend your statement to read "if you are current on the status of paranormal research then you know that ALL credible scientists question the existence of the paranormal, [although SOME credible scientists believe there is substantive evidence to consider]".

So you think that the range of subjects on which Milton disagrees with modern science is NOT evidence that he is a crank ?THe REAL fact about parapsychology is that it has not really got anywhere. The BEST evidence is always of a small effect - which often can't be reproduced, and usually gets abandoned after problems are found (sometimes fraud). Only a small body of "true beleivers" insist that the paranormal definitely exists.If you've got real arguments then produce them, not Milton's opinions. Milton's hatred of science taints his opinions too greatly for them to be worth anything.[Added in edit]
I notice that on another thread you claim to have plenty of evidence. Well bring it on instead of wasting everybodies time with Richard Milton's opinions.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 12-01-2003]

I've seen this stated many times. It's not true. This definition completely misses almost all of the significant parts of the theory, in particular it fails to explain how Natural Selection accounts for the fossil record, and how it explains the development of highly functional characteristics and organisms.

Hmmm, I thought JIM's definition was basically correct while the points you mentioned are evidence in support of evolution.

To see that JIM's definition is false, imagine this scenario:You have a population of rats: some white, some black. Suppose every hundred generations the population cycles from 95% black, 5% white to 5% black, 95% white and then back again. This is a change in allele frequency over time; it is not evolution (unless the change can be tracked to factors changing the relative fitness of black and white rats).Descent With Modification, and Natural Selection are the keystones of evolutionary theory; neither are contained in JIM's definition. JIM's definition has no explanatory power; it is prerequisite and prediction for evolution, not the definition

Mr Jack, It is evolution, not necessarily adaptive evolution, but it is evolution. Neutral theory & genetic drift are non-adaptive, are in no way related to fitness, yet are still evolutionary mechanisms.Mark