Nothingness writes:
Well, I believe that evolutionists claim that the Linnaean hierarchy is a means of proving the theory of evolution.
Not exactly. That evolution has occurred is an interpretation of the Linnaean classification of organisms. The classification system is consistent with an evolutionary interpretation.
Howerver, if that was the case, then, I guess that deviation disproves it.
This wouldn't be true, either. Not only is a classification system not proof of evolution, it is just a human perspective, an interpretation of evidence in an evolutionary framework, and it will change as we discover more organisms and more about them. So when you say this:
I see too many "convenient" changes in the theory of evolution, which spring forth.
It isn't the theory of evolution that changes if we decide to change the slots into which we've plugged various organisms in a classification system. The theory of evolution remains unchanged whether we decide
Australopithecus afarensis lies on a line of direct descent to us or not. That isn't to say the theory of evolution will never change, because it very likely will. As a scientific theory it is tentative, and therefore open to change in light of new evidence or improved insights.
Think of it as similar to figuring out why an airplane crashed. As the investigators try out various scenarios, the laws of physics remain unchanged. Just as the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether the investigators decide it was sabatage or accident, so is the theory of evolution the same regardless of what we decide about our ancestry.
Now, how is it that whenever you get backed into a corner,...
This is an odd comment. I think all the evolutionists here probably feel we're still trying to help you understand what we're saying. While we recognize we've been largely unsuccessful to this point, the feeling we have isn't one of being backed into a corner, but more one of wondering what type of explanation might best be tried next.
From mutations-punctuated equilibrium-non gradualistic evolution-massive horizontal gene transfre-and last but obviously not least, computation adjustments...and can't explain it with observable evidence, these new concepts appear out of thin air?
I'm not sure why you think these concepts have been pulled out of thin air. The idea of mutations has been around for over a century, and punctuated equilibrium and horizontal gene transfer are ideas that are at least 30 years old. I don't know what you mean by computation adjustments.
If evolution can explain away all "deviations" so well,...
You mention deviations several times, but the message you're responding to doesn't mention any, and you don't give any examples, so I don't know what you're referring to. But if you talking about changing interpretations of existing evidence, or modifications of interpretations in light of new evidence, then I can only say that that is the way science works. One does not hold onto views which are not in concordance with the evidence. That would be stupid.
Now, if evolution was true, then I would think that biologists would find some, cases in which evolution has repeated itself.
It
*has* repeated itself. There's even a term for it: convergent evolution.
In every post you add a new set of fresh arguments, none of them addressing in any significant way the posts of others in this thread, or even the topic of this thread, which you yourself started. You appear to want a different discussion than the one you began.
Transitionals with characterisitics of two or more other groups exist in the fossil record. This is a fact. If you can concede this fact and allow us to agree on a definition of "Ape Man" then I think discussion on this topic can procede on to what really interests you, which is whether these supposed transitionals can really be interpreted as evidence for evolution.
As always, you can always begin a new thread at [forum=-25].
--Percy
I also believe that the age of strata cannot be correct , considering it previously used this supposedly extinct fossil, which happens to be quite alive, in the fossil index.
? LOL I really do.
™ Version 4.2