One of the many things evolutionists avoid to respond

Every man equipped with reason should follow this topic and read the
answers the evolutionists are forced to give, you decide then if they are convincing or not : )As for the evolutionists, please do not include pointless links in your replies from sources that rely upon speculation or their own subjective view, and please, DONT dissicate this topic, a simple question, needs a simple descent answer.Einstein said:"Every intelligent fool is cabable of making a problem look more comlex, but it takes the touch of a genius to simplify it".Question:Why do we dont see the a smooth graduate line in the fossil records , instead we see gaps, followed by another distinct specie.And remember, similarities between species in your evolutionary tree is not an evidence to prove anything, if you believe in Allah,for instance, then you interpret the same similarities as signs of Him guiding evolution into what he wants.
Its only a question of perspective.Use the example of how Compsognathus (A chicken sized reptile), could by means of random mutation and natural selection evolve into Archaeopteryx(A bird living 150 million years ago, fully capable of flying).Explain the process thouroughly because you are sure to be replied.And if you wish to skip the fact that fossils are missing, then I dont regard you as scientists, but as the best of athletes, jumping over the largest gaps without the smallest problems.

Delshad,Serious question, it is related I assure you, then I'll get to answering your question.Q/ Do you believe a global flood is responsible for fossil deposition, & if so, which "mainstream" strata does it begin & end?Like starts Cambrian, ends Cretaceous sort of thing.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Question:Why do we dont see the a smooth graduate line in the fossil records , instead we see gaps, followed by another distinct specie.

---

Not everything that dies becomes a fossil. In fact very few things that die actually become fossils. Yes?Dead things that do become fossils stand a chance of being destroyed before we find them. This chance becomes greater as time passes. Yes?I don't see how one could argue against these premises but please take a shot if you feel the need.Consequently, even if we found every single fossil that has survived until today, we'd still have gaps in the record.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Einstein said:"Every intelligent fool is cabable of making a problem look more comlex, but it takes the touch of a genius to simplify it".

---

True, but one must realize that some problems are indeed complex, and my call for a complex answer.One person's "nice simple response" might be viewed as a "superficial response". Also, simple responses are fine and good, but they can leave room for others to draw conclusions that were not meant.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

To mark24: Im quite embaressed because I dont really understand the question properly...but, yes I do believe that in most cases ( especially when we are talking about millions of years), large quantity of the fossils will perish.However, and this is replied to John too; because of the distinct differences between Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx, I dont believe I ask too much in my search to find only ONE single replica indicating that there were intermediats to Archaeopteryx, if your theory really is true then not thousands but many millions of them linking the species above would exist.
And most of them wouldnt be able to fly at all, yet still developing through evolutionary processes the anatomy needed to do it perfectly.
WHY and HOW and WHERE`S the proof(similarities disregarded as evidence). Sincerely: Delshad

Correction, "millions of fossils (would) have existed" . Sorry about the mistake : )

quote:

---

To mark24: Im quite embaressed because I dont really understand the question properly...but, yes I do believe that in most cases ( especially when we are talking about millions of years), large quantity of the fossils will perish.

---

What I mean is, you know the geological time periods, Jurassic, Triassic, etc. When do you think the flood started & ended. I appreciate you may think that the bulk of the geologic column formed in a year, rather than in millions of years, but, the question stands, what part of the geologic column denotes the start & stop of the flood? For example, most creationists think the flood started at the pre-cambrian/cambrian boundary (before the cambrian explosion) & ended at the cretaceous/tertiary boundary (Just above the last dinosaur fossil, that good for you?.Hope that's clearer.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-11-2002]

To Johns comment that:" even if we would find the fossils of every creature that has existed, we would still find gaps in the fossil record".IMHO: No, not if the "gaps" were so small that it could be within ONE generations limits of reproducing a variety in the genome.

Mark24,Generally The bulk of the Geological column would be in the cambrian period I would believe, but I could be wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
IMHO: No, not if the "gaps" were so small that it could be within ONE generations limits of reproducing a variety in the genome.

---

That is just the point Delshad. The fossil record contains nowhere near the numbers of fossils needed for the gaps to be as small as one generation. There are a lot of scientists who'd kill to make that happen. The fact is that fossils require some special circumstances to form. Insects, predators, scavengers and the weather do horrible things to fossils.But you definitely have the concept. You understand that if the fossils were frequent enough we'd see smooth transitions. Now add to that the fact many fewer fossils than required for that smooth curve actually survive and you will understand why the fossil record shows gaps.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Im sorry John, but im kinda sleepy now. (Its 2 pm here)
Ill continue this as soon as possible.
Hope youll continue the debate tommorow.Good night

Just a note to Delshad:I note that you are never using the "reply" button, found at the bottom of the individual messages.Using the big "Post Reply" button, at the bottom of the page, does work. But if you are replying to a specific message, it is nice to use the "reply" button found at the base of the specific message. That's how the "Replys to this message" and "This message is a reply to" notations come to be at the bottom of the messages.Using this feature helps connect up the relationships between messages. Just an organization thing.Adminnemooseus------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

Thanks for the tip : )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Mark24,

​

Generally The bulk of the Geological column would be in the cambrian period I would believe, but I could be wrong.

​

---

Not sure what you mean? You mean the flood started at beginning the cambrian? What strata did it end?Mat------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Dear Mark24 : I believe it did end sometime during the end of the extinction of the Dinosaurs, Craetacious i believe its called.
After the impact of the asteroid, maybe the environment wasnt as suitable for fossil preservation as before.Dear John: However I find it quite amusing that the evolutionary process between Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, that screams for an explanation, just cant be found.
My point is that in some major "leaps" in the history of evolution, the first fish, the fish into an amphibian, or the amphibian into a reptile, such organs as lungs or a way of giving alive birth, are mainly made of soft tissues.
Let me explain myself ( This is going to sound repetetive if you have read my other topic about the human eyebrow, but Im sorry :I saw in a topic Hanno made, about HOW the first fish came up on land, and he got the reply, " some fishes did have secondary traits that were advantagous , and were built upon by evolutionary processes"
Lets stop at the secondary traits, why did the genome in the fish that already could breathe under water, "start" the developement
of an alternative way of staying alive above surface.
My guess is that during the first million year, the system was not significant to give any advantagous at all, the "organ" would have been very small and very useless.
So how come that natural selection and random mutation evolved the "vestigial organ" to work above surface, even if it was for a few seconds of use, when clearly the advantagous beneath the surface is none, did it plan ahead?
I realise that it is a clearly impossible task for me to ask you to show me the fossils in the examples above because soft tissue tend to perish quite fast
Thats why in the example of Compsognathus-Archaeopteryx, where the differences of the sceletal structure are remarkable, and the long time needed for secondary traits " its arms ? ) to evolve into wings
is there.
Indeed, the construction of a wing is so fragile and delicate that even if you were to rip out only a few feathers from its wings, it wouldn`t be able to fly (I dont find it likely that the wings and the avial feathers would once have been used for anything else but for flying with).
And once again, the fact that enormous quantities of the specie once have lived.
I dont think Im asking too much when I only wish to see ONE fossil replica.Sincerely, Delshad