TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Yes. Hence all the intermediate forms in the fossil record.All the quotations out of context in the whole world won't make them go away. We can directly observe beneficial mutations occurring and spreading through a population by natural selection. You don't explain what your doubt is. As the scientists you quoted said, it shows that the morphology of the finches was subject to natural selection. As in: Well of course not, that's what mutations do. Selection simply selects the best variants, hence the name.

When did science tell you that? Only I was chatting to science down the pub the other night, and science told me something rather different.Science told me that it is foolish and footling to try to calculate the probability of an event when you know neither the nature of that event nor the conditions under which it took place. Show your working.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You've made 4032 posts on this forum, and you don't know the answer to that?Let me give you a little hint. YES.

Yes it does: all those intermediate forms, for example. Yes, of course. Because that's what the theory of evolution predicts that we should see, and the predictions of the theory are always correct. What on Earth are you talking about? "As opposed to"?Obviously an intermediate form is a fully formed and functioning creature, how else could it be transitional? It also has gastralia, teeth, independent digits, no synsacrum, a pelvis unfused to its vertebrae, and no pygostyle. Putting it all together together, we find that it is an intermediate between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds. Of course. And not one single modern bird. But the delusions of creationists are not evidence. Did you just call hyraxes "fox like"?What is it with creationists? You're obsessed with biology, but you're not interested in it.How long, how frickin' long, would it have taken you to look up the word "hyrax" on Google? And this was perfectly true in 1859, when he wrote it.Since then, paleontologists have found masses of intermediate forms. And, of course, they have. And the words of one Swedish non-paleontologist writing in the 1950s whom you've never heard of except that you found his name in a creationist quote mine will not magically make that fact disappear. That would be why no-one ever claimed that they did. You are confusing the proposition that there is a creator with the proposition that he magicked the human species into existence by an act of special creation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is true. Therefore, I am utterly at a loss to know why you quote it. This is laughably out of date and out of context. This is out of date, false when it was written, and ridiculous. Which explains why it was written by a creationist for a magazine distributed by the Seventh Day Adventists. The way in which creationists ripped this phrase out of context to deceive you about what Sagan was saying should disgust you even more than it disgusts me --- because, after all, it is you to whom they are lying, and it is you whom they are deceiving.---Of course the fact that evolution has taken place is consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. That's just what Melindoor's been telling you. That's just what you've been denying.What it is not consistent with is creationist fantasies.ETA: Having seen the Sagan quote in greater context, as provided in the posts below, I see that Sagan explicitly says that the fossil record is inconsistent with the God of creationist fantasy, but not with "a designer of more remote and indirect temperament".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The death and suffering exist anyway, even if you believe that God magicked them into existence.That leaves your inability to accept that God might have used evolution. What's that phrase Jesus had about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat? Don't be silly. The pain and suffering to which you alluded are excellent arguments for atheism. The fact of descent with modification is not. This fails to explain why all those theist biologists think you're wrong about biology.Try again. Why would biologists, irrespective of whether they're theists or atheists, think that you're wrong about biology?Good luck figuring that out. One could say the same about naturalistic explanations for thunder and lightning. That won't magically make those explanations go away, nor does it mean that those who advance these explanations are doing so in order to make Thor or Zeus or Jehovah "look weak". The eternal cry of the man with all the evidence against him.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Except that he explicitly says that the fossil record is "inconsistent with an efficient designer". To pretend that he was trying to make any other point is dishonest. And that is certainly not what he said. how can we look at the evidence of evolution, then say its all a result of God poofing animals out of the air by magicthat makes no sense. Its contrary to the evidence that we see.---And incidentally, what's this "we"? The evidence that we see, says the person who thinks that hyraxes are "fox-like".You don't study biology. You study creationist quote-mines. Biologists study biology.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

50 years' worth of evolution. Of course. This is why we have new varieties of domesticated plants and animals. Of course. This is what the theory of evolution predicts, and the theory always turns out to be right. A creationist spouted creationist nonsense. So? It doesn't. Don't be silly.

No. So stop pretending that that's what he said. He doesn't. You're pretending that he says he sees design in all things ... and complaining that he's biased against design? STOP MAKING STUFF UP. That paragraph could have made a whole lot more sense if it had different words in it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know how you calculated that "we should expect hundreds" --- like every other creationist who makes a numerical argument, you have forgotten to show your working --- but there are certainly many known intermediate forms between your standard theropod and modern birds. Some names that come to mind are Caudipteryx, Microraptor, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciornis, Hesperornis, Rahona, Iberomesornis, Patagopteryx ... and so forth. There's plenty there if you can just be bothered to look 'em up.

Apart from the fact that what you're saying probably doesn't apply to all dinosaurs ---You are arguing that birds can't have evolved from dinosaurs because birds are not the same as dinosaurs.Do I wake or sleep?THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION MEANS. The descendants are different from the ancestors. And of course "Darwin's finches" are an excellent example of speciation.You are trying to confuse two completely different ideas. If you are trying to do this deliberately, then shame on you for a disgusting liar.If you have not understood the concepts that you are trying to discuss --- then shame on you for not trying to find out what you're talking about.Shame on you, the person who thought that a salamander was a fish, shame on you, the person who stated that hyraxes were "fox like", and shame on you, the person who is currently posting abject nonsense about the Galapagos finches. SHAME ON YOU for talking garbage about biology without ever having taken the slightest interest in biology or learned anything about it. Shame on you. Shame on you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then I guess if I say that the way my socks keep going missing could be consistent with the idea of a magic sock-stealing fairy ... you would take that as an acknowledgment of the existence of a magic sock-stealing fairy?If you lie about what Sagan meant, then you are, how can I put this ... lying about what Sagan meant.It is true that by employing willful stupidity so gross as to amount to a psychosis, you can lie to yourself about what Sagan meant. This does not change what Sagan meant, nor what he said.And why do you bother? Oh ... yes ... I remember why. It's because there is no evidence for creationism. Therefore, in order to pretend that there is, you have to recite lie after lie after lie after lie about what scientists think, so as to pretend that they said that there's evidence for creationism. This saves you the trouble of producing any such evidence, something that you are completely unable to do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, that is not what he is saying.When I think about the enormous effort you must put in to misunderstanding everything you read ... wouldn't it just be easier to understand it?

No. He does not say that that is why he said that, and that is obviously not why he said that. You made that up.STOP MAKING STUFF UP.Couldn't you find some actual evidence for design, instead of making stuff up about Carl Sagan's opinions ...... oh, wait, no you can't. 'Cos there isn't any.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That is not true. Stop making stuff up. Because that is what the theory of evolution predicts, and the theory of evolution is always right. Because that is what the theory of evolution predicts, and the theory of evolution is always right. There are none. That is something that you made up. Stop making stuff up.