We are the gods..

quote:

---

First of all, evolution is not reproducible. No one ever witnessed the origin of life, nor has it ever been reproduced. Even by cheating in the lab to make conditions much more optimal than they would have been in the supposed pre-biotic soup, all you get are a few simple amino acids that can't remain stable anyway unless they are separated from the mixture as soon as they form.

---

Hmmm - confuses abiogenesis and evolution, and then...

quote:

---

When it comes to evolution,

---

Shows he did know the difference, so presumably was just being disingenuous.

quote:

---

we have to do a lot of interpretation and guessing. We look at some bones and since we already believe evolution to be true, we interpret the bones on that basis and then use that interpretation as proof for evolution. Most people fall for this trick.

---

Your interpretation of the migration of the reptilian jawbone through the reptile/mammal series is invited.

quote:

---

We can't produce any missing links in experiments

---

But we produce them out of the ground in large numbers.

quote:

---

yet we have faith to believe that even without intelligent human help, billions of them have come into existence.

---

Nope. Observation. Why "billions"? Billions of individuals, possibly, but not billions of transitionals.

On definition of evolution:Darwin's book does not concern itself with the origin of life. In fact, it merely suggests that God created the first form or forms, and leaves it at that. It is entirely about development of existing life, and does not address abiogenesis at all.Your telling phrase is "at least from the atheistic viewpoint". Your point (however good or bad it may be) is contra atheism, not contra evolution. Actually, I'm a theist but I do strongly suspect God used natural processes for the origins of life.No, "seperation" of chemical and biological evolution is not a new development. They have always been quite seperate.On reptile/mammal transitionals:Since the transition took of the order of 100 million years or so, from the late Carboniferous through to the early Triassic, why should various forms not radiate, as later mammals have done? Would it make sense for them to say "hey guys, let's hang around here until we've fully evolved into mammals"? Not sensible. Geographical considerations aside, you still have to deal with the sequence, and the remarkable congruence between the transitional state of each specimen and its age. Unless you suggest we consciously fiddled the figures?And I have no idea what Moreover, intercontinental correlations are made even when the fossil genera do not correspond with each other. means.On TransitionalsMost disputes are not about whether a specimen is transitional, but exactly what the transition is. No-one within mainstream science disputes that Ambulocetus is transitional, but debate rages over what the exact ancestor of it was, and what course evolution took between it and modern cetaceans, or whether Amb. is truly ancestral to modern cetaceans, or merely a cousin. None of it helps creationism in the slightest, because Ambulocetus shouldn't exist at all for you!