evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

The intent of my original post was to point out some differences that I observed between what is claimed to exist as evidence and what really does exist. What I suspected seems to be true, that there really are no transitional forms, just plaster of paris and imagination.

Read Dr Clack's book, then. Or look at Thewissen's whale website:http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/

How would you know? What makes a mosquito a mosquito? Of what "fundamental" do you speak? How would you know if they were "fundamentally" the same or not? You do know that we abandoned species essentialism sometime in the 19th century, right?

Sounds like your daughter is receiving an excellent education.I know Clack is a riveting read, but does she offer anything specific to my request, as to evidence of transitional forms? when we discussed her previously, the research I did seemed to indicate that although she definitely has newly discovered tetrapods, the rest is conjecture.

You keep mentioning some problem with the coelacanth. Could you please explain what this problem is more detail.The coelacanth has been discussed extensively on this forum and I've never seen anyone (from either side of the evo/creo argument) mention anything that sounds like the sort of thing you're hinting at. I've tried Googling and couldn't come up with anything that looked very likely.The only detail I can find you've posted so far is Message 116 : and Message 146 : I have an idea what you're talking about, but there's no point in discussing it until I know for sure I'm understanding you right.

---

Confused ? You will be...

What does any of that have to do with the issue in Message 161?You asserted that the TOE was being taught as fact. It's time to either support the assertion or retract it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So now I'm being graded on my attempts at humor. Oh no! My wife is right. I'm not funny.I may not understand your evolutionary theory. Which one do you currently accept? Or are you now discussing origin of life?

Given that they have such a short generation time, is there evidence of bacteria evolving into new, more complex, life forms? This is really off the question I originally wanted an answer for, but I asked about them, so I'll bite.

Hi All,Even though this is wildly off topic, this signature has been annoying me while lurking through. Hopefully this hasn't been discussed before. The error in logic falls between the line (a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
and a - t/2 = b - t/2. The square function, f, is not linear.i.e. f(a)=f(b) does not necessarily imply a = b.
An example of this is (-3)^2 = (3)^2, yet it goes without saying that -3 does not equal 3.With a + b = t, a - t/2 simplifies to a/2 - b/2, with b - t/2 simplifying to b/2 - a/2. Given that a does not equal b, it is obvious that one of the terms is positive while the other is negative.If you multiply one side by the corrective negative sign.
One obtains
a - t/2 = -(b - t/2)
a - t/2 = -b + t/2
a + b = t, which is the initial relationship.

I can't find the original reference that I had. Just a few minutes however and I did find this reference to the fact that evolutionists believed the leg bones were present and just waiting to pop out. I found it on dinofish.com.
"Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth with its "missing link" "proto legs" was "discovered" alive and well in 1938! Read all about it- including the latest efforts to"

Ummm, no, since PE deals with patterns in the fossil record over time. This particular example deals with macroevolution (unless you consider the latter to be more than speciation). It is a direct response to your request concerning speciation caused by change in environment (in this case, colonization by C. pipiens of a new habitat leading to reproductive isolation, and ultimately speciation). Not to my knowledge. However, the article does state that the two species overlap in the disease vectors they carry in one part of their range. This would be the classic hybrid zone between closely related species, and is expected - especially in newly separated species (another bit of evidence that this is a recent speciation). I'm not clear why you bring this point up? I beg your pardon? C. molestus is a NEW species. It never existed before. Its parent species is a day/evening flyer - the new species prefers darkness, etc. This is what you asked for. Next question.

You simple must be more careful about what you use as a source and believe. That site is even worse than many.I suggest you start at about this message and read up and down discussin g the Coelacanth and the serious 'misunderstanding' of it. Message 31

Umm, thanks. I'm not sure what all that's supposed to be in aid of. However, we have a couple of pretty good, open threads on the Coelacanth that you might wish to peruse/join in/add your new evidence/twist. Unless the originator of this thread agrees, this particular "problem" is one that would be off-topic for this thread.(edited to add: well, maybe not the thread originator, since it appears to be a one-off). AdminNosy may be able to make the call as to whether this topic would be, well, off-topic here.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-18-2005 22:58 AM

Thewissen's website was very interesting. When you work with an assumption that whales were land mammals and then find an extinct animal whose identifying feature connecting it with whales is the shape of it's ear canal, I can only say that the connection seems tenous at best. Thewissen assumes these are whale ancestors, because he needs to find whale ancestors to support his belief that whales were originally land animals.

Well, what you have to say, knowing nothing about why this is not tenuous isn't really worth much is it? It is, for one thing, not the only reason for thinking that the intermediaries between land animals and whales has been found.It is embarassing for those who make the claim: "there are no transitionals" of course. But they should have shut up on that one decades ago as there have been such evidence around for that long.