TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Define close family.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

he said it 'could be' because it looks as if its designedbut doesnt beleive its designed because he knows it had no designer and is nothing more then a product of evolution?can he prove that it wasnt designed?

so are you now saying that transitional fossils dont show evolutionary changes?isnt it the fossil record that is supposed to be the proof of change...are you saying translitionals dont show it??

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.

No... How did you get to that conclusion? Please, do tell me, I'm trying to understand the way you think.What I meant by that is that what you wrote about Australopithecus, is exactly why we're calling it a transitional. It has many "ape" features, just not quite, and some "human" features. No... Again, how did you come to that conclusion?What you wrote about Australopithecus is the way we would normally describe a transitional, with some feautes of one species (just not quite) and some of another.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

thats right because the only testimony of the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animalsmuch of the fossil evidence is showing something completely different If the process of evolution describe the constant change of living things why are there innumerable fossils found in ancient strata that, like the lungfish, are identifiable with modern species?why are there hundreds of insect fossils found in Mesozoic rocks similar to species of the same insects we have today?Surely evolution cant apply to some fossils but not others. If the theory is accurate, then there should be no exceptions to the rule and yet there are many.

Essentially you have it right. That is his opinion. This is why the quote as-is from your favourite creationist quote mine should not be used - it means exactly the opposite of what you thought it meant. That isn't the issue I have with what you are doing. The issue is, and I'm going to point it out:You (a creationist) want to use a quote from an evolutionist* a quote that has been changed by creationists to mean something it does not
deliberate deception or cheating
* that makes it appear an evolutionist supports a view he does not
deliberate deception or cheating
* to bolster the position you hold in an argument about doubting the proof of the ToE
intended to gain an advantage
* when the author of the quote himself has no doubt whatsoever
unfairlyPeg, there's a huge thread from another of your fellow creationists about how those awful evilutionists have benefitted by using fraudulent means to push the theory of evolution.sadly, for all his bluster, archangel has yet to display a single case of fraud.You, in using a misquote from Sagan (and quite possibly others) are doing something that fits perfectly with the dictionary definition of the word.Now, are you sure you want to keep using quote mines?

yes it's snipped, no it doesn't change the context or the intent. proof please.
I'm glad to see you admit that there is evidence of something in a fossil record... because some life forms don't change significantly and are around for a looonnng time. I thought you knew more about the ToE than that. they're similar because they're related. duh.I thought you knew what the words "evolution" "descent with modification" and "mutation" meant, not to mention "species", "taxa", "genus", even "kind" for goodness' sake.

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.

The pedantic reply to this last remark would be: evolution doesn't apply to fossils. Fossils are the remains of dead individual creatures, and not capable of evolving. Only populations of species evolve.But I do not want to be pedantic. A more helpful approach would be to think of the fossil record as something like a film reel with most of the frames missing and only some of them still there but gone terribly bad. Only occasionally a frame is good enough to get some impression of what it must have looked like when it was new. We would like to know the storyline of the film with lots of details, but we only have this one reel and it's sadly impossible to see the complete film. If it were only for the fossil record, it would be the same with evolution. We'd only have a very incomplete picture of the development of life on earth.Fortunately, all is not lost because we also have evidence from sciences other than geology, most notably genetics. Genetic sequencing gives us a much clearer picture of the relatedness of all life. By looking at specific sequences and comparing them between species, we can put these species in their right place in the family tree. If we do so, we can also see that the tree so constructed coincides almost exactly with trees we construct from other evidence, like morphology, embryology, and, yes, the fossil record.The perceived suddenness of the appearance of species in the fossil record is an artefact of the way the fossil record came into existence. To use another metaphor: it's like a box of photographs you recover from the ruins of a house that burned down. Some photographs are still intact, but most are gone. Are we then to believe from this evidence that, sometime in the past, the girl in the remaining photographs suddenly appeared as a six year old and next turned into an adolescent overnight, to turn into an adult equally suddenly? Surely not.Does this make sense to you, Peg?Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils....they call it a transitional to reptiles but it is not.

mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, auntyimmediate family.

thats right, i understand this perfectly and its what i've been debating about.most of the frames are missing and the picture of life on earth is incomplete. This creates reason to doubt because it is not possible to convey an accurate picture...You know that crimes can go unsolved for many years because the police do not have enough evidence. They dont draw their conclusions before they have all the evidence. at the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, in Turin, Italy a Paleontologist named Bernard Vandermeersch said that as far as man’s origins were concerned, what paleontology has shown contradicted the genetics data...genetics has shown that all people alive today come from 1 common ancestor and that one was 'human' not ape.this is in harmony with what other genetic researchers have shown and that is that the DNA of chimpanzees and orangutans, as well as of certain monkeys and macaques, is not as similar to man’s as scientists once thought. Kelly Frazer of Perlegen Sciences stated in an article in Britain’s New Scientist magazine (2003) that their research had shown large deletions and insertions sprinkled throughout the chromosomeSo i dont think everyone agrees that genetics has helped evolutions cause. it does, its a good metaphor and i understand it. But it doesnt convince me that life evolved.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Not if you have to rely on the fossil evidence alone, no. But you don't have to, as I've pointed out. It's funny you should say that, because many cold cases are now being solved after all, because of... genetic evidence. Isn't that a curious coincidence? I don't have the specifics available right now, so I can't confirm this. But I'll take your word for it. It doesn't worry me in the least though, because it only proves that science is an ongoing operation and that new insights only improve our knowledge base. In this case, I'd say that genetics, which is a fairly exact science, trumps the less exact science of paleontology, and provides better insights in the findings of the latter.Besides, you're talking about all people alive today. If the total human population has, at any one time, gone through a bottle neck, meaning that the total population had sunk to very low numbers, then it's no surprise that everyone living today descends from just a few, possibly even one human ancestor. There are good indications, again from genetic evidence, that it is indeed the case that humans have gone through one or more bottlenecks. But anyway, how about the total human population contemporary to that human ancestor? And how about the population of all humans who ever lived? Who did they descend from? Depending on when "once" was, this is not surprising either. Before the advance of molecular genetics scientist pretty much didn't have a clue about the exact degree of similarity in DNA between humans and their nearest cousins. And I'm not worried about different percentages being quoted today. The fact is that they are becoming more accurate as we speak, and are still in the low to intermediate one figure numbers, depending on what's being compared. Sure, I concur. Most, if not all, creationists don't agree that genetics has helped evolutions cause. So it's a bit of a moot point, actually. If it were the only evidence, you'd have a point. But how about all the other scientific evidence pointing in the same direction? Doesn't that count for anything?Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.