TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

1) Your first two quotes are part of a dispute within evolution. Your source is misrepresenting them.The third, from Chittick is from a creationist - as should be obvious, He has no qualifications in geology or paleontology. And he is lying about the absence of transitional forms.The Ruse quote at best is unclear - because it lacks anything that might tell us what Ruse thought was missing or how the supposed gap might be filled. Quite likely because your source doesn't want us to know - or copied from someone else who doesn't want us to know.The Darwin quote does not specifically deal with the fossil record specifically and does not even support your point. Did you not notice the word "apparently" ?If the fossil record did not support evolution why is every point an attempt to mislead or deceive ?2) Lnnig is a creationist. And the evidence shows no such thing (what is a "genetically properly defined species" anyway ?)3) The fact that the changes reversed in the finch study only shows that there was no directional change in forms already well adapted to the environment. In other words the objection is a red herring. The study DOES show that natural selection does work.The Schwartz quote is unclear and could easily refer to the fact that evolution requires the combination of mutation and natural selection working together. (Isn't it interesting that your source tries to keep them separate ?).

quote:

---

Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely. I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.

---

This is another creationist falsehood. THere is NO good estimate for the probability of life originating. None at all.

quote:

---

I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.

---

Ask yourself, if there were good reasons to doubt evolution - why has your source not produced any ?

quote:

---

For purposes of debate, can transitionals be shown. Birds for example - are there real-life examples of dinosaurs to birds? The claim is evolution, originally, not the facts. The facts therefore have to show evolution. There has to be a progression if it is true.

---

Yes. There is increasing evidence of feathered dinosaurs (including some new discoveries, reported last week) which shed some light on the evolution of feathers. Further confirming evidence is the special wrist joint that birds have - along with the branch of theropods they are thought to be descended from.Of course, even without these archaeopteryx would still have dinosaurian features while lacking some distinctive features of birds ie.. a clear transitional.

quote:

---

The popular answer is that fossilization is rare, and can only show us a small part of the picture. That seems like a fair but weak explanation rather than, "there are transitionals, you're a liar".

---

I did not accuse Peg of lying (and I do not believe that she knowingly told a falsehood). However there ARE many known transitional fossils.

quote:

---

There might be transitionals, but the question is; how many are missing, percentage-wise.

---

If you think that you can find a problem here, then please go, do the research. I've no reason to think that anything is wrong.