Neither Evolution nor Creation are

[QUOTE][b]According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal[/QUOTE][/b]Already off to a bad start as far as basic knowledge of the scientific principles we are debating, I see.

Answer Mark first and then check your post and try to correct yourself. It's pretty glaring actually. How can you propose to debate something that you have shown yourself to not know even the most basic principles of?

Hah, Joz, did you have to give him the answer?10 billion years is more than twice the age of the Earth.

Also "Darwinism" does not specify a timeframe nor does it specify an origin of life. It simply begins when life appears, because the existance of life and hereditary are fundamental assumptions. The question of the origin of life is dealt with by the theories of abiogenesis. Besides, are we talking about the general model of evolution here or are we discussing Darwinism specifically? And I have to ask why "Darwinism" and the current interpretations of the fossil hierarchy are being confused. Where does Darwinism say that a single celled lifeform gave rise to metazoans? We seem to be discussing many differe things compounded into one, and it is generating some confusion. These individual concepts are:--The age of the Earth and the age of terrestrial life--The origin of terrestrial life--The origin of multicellular life--The current picture of the history of life on Earth--Strict Darwinism (as opposed to Modern Synthesis) and the validity thereofWhen we talk about Darwinism we talk about the proliferation and non-proliferation of mutations as dictated solely by natural selection (as opposed to factors like genetic drift). We're not dealing with any particular scenarios of the evolution of life on Earth, simply a principle of biology. The scenarios, like other concepts listed above, should be discussed separately.

[QUOTE][b]There are genes (alleles if you prefer) in modern day chickens, that if active would cause the chicken to have a tail and teeth much more like (say) a dinosaur or lizard.[/QUOTE][/b]This is a whopper the way it is stated, but I think I can help you a little on it.Chicken teeth are gone, to the best of my knowledge, but some of the genes that are responsible to tooth production in embryonic chickens remain and can be artificially incited through introduction of mammalian hormones that incite tooth generation in embryonic mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10954731&dopt=AbstractI can also vouch for spontaneous evolutionary atavisms in aves in the form of wing claws and digits but as for tails you're on your own.I also think that while we are discussing hybirds and speciation, maybe we should have discussed sympatric vs. allopatric speciation.

That whole post is an argument from authority. Also, are you so sure Phillip Johnston is a theistic evolutionist? Secondly, even arguing from authority were acceptable, why would you consider an attorney to be an authority?Now to go down the list and eliminate authorities that support evolution, just not Darwin's version...Mivart:A theistic Lamarckian evolutionist. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/Mivart.html"Mivart, however, himself professed a theory of evolution; but he unhesitatingly and consistently asserted the irreconcilable difference between the inanimate and animate, as well as between the the purely animal and the rational. By maintaining the creationist theory of the origin of the human soul he attempted to reconcile his evolutionism with the Catholic faith."Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10407b.htmKauffman, Stuart:Was studying methods of testing evolution of molecules in 1995. Abstract: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Abstracts/95-04-042abs.htmlLectures on his own theory of abiogenesis:Lecture:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Lecture-2.htmlWrote a book regarding the evolution of proteins as an example of information increases in complex systems:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/originstofc.htmlP.T. Saunders:Wrote:
"Evolution without Natural Selection: Further Implications of the Daisyworld Parable."
J. Theor. Biol. 166 (1994) 365-373. http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pt_saunders.htmlHe's opposed to neo-darwinism, not evolution. Looks like a fan of James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.He and MT Ho edited a book on Neo-Darwinism back in '86, the subtitle of the book was "An Introduction To The New Evolution"Remember that being opposed to Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism is not necessarily equivalent to being opposed to evolution.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-27-2002]