evolution?

Greetings:RSSmith writes:I have seen the skulls of the many different human ape species. That is physical tangible proof.I have also seen the canals of Mars - does that mean there is intelligent life on Mars? The problem with your "proof" is that it is based on an interpretation of the evidence. Can you show me evidence for 1/2 men and 1/2 ape outside of your interpretation of some problematic fossil records?I assume that you think that there was a time when there were only "apes" and no humans around? Can you show me how an ape can become a human being? - or a 1/2 ape, 1/2 human? Or whatever you think it is that constitutes absolute proof for evolution outside of an appeal to the fossil record?Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago writes:"We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

Greetings:Thank you, Moose, for that thoughtful reply. I hope you can track down that article and either send it to me or give me a good summation of its contents. I will look for it as well.I realize that people who have a vested interest in evolution and are honest enough to see the biochemical problems that Behe presents would like to remain "optimistic" that evolution will oneday explain the process, but I will remain skeptical.A mousetrap is irreducibly complex...Darwin in Origin of Species, pg. 154 writes:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...

Greetings Moose!I am glad to hear that you are a trained geologist and that you are a professor of Geology. In reading your answers it seems that you are already biased in favor of evolution, but I will ply you with a question nonetheless.Here is a link: www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp to an article by John Woodmorappe entitled, "The Geologic Column: Does it exist?" If what the article says is truen, then one would have to conclude that the "geologic column" is not a fact of science but a speculation or interpretation of the geologic data.I understand that you have both a personal and a professional stake in the factual nature of the geologic column, but I would like to know your thoughts on the article anyway.Robert