Evolution: a red herring?

quote:

---

It seems to me that if a dog spontaneously gave birth to a cat (or vice versa)it would be a great thing for evolution.

---

With all respect that simply shows that you know very little about evolution. Dogs and cats have diverged for a considerably period of time and expecting a dog to lose all the features specific to dogs gained in that time and to spontaneously acquire the features specific to cats instead is simply not possible according to evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

This would be hard evidence for one genus evolving into another, which I have never seen anyone give an example of, either living or in the fossil record.

---

And if radical changes like a dog giving birth to a cat were possible we COULDN'T find evidence in the fossil record. The parents and child species would be just to different for us to make the link. We couldn't rely on any of the links we have found because the actual ancestry could be completely different.But we have found links in the fossil record - I would think that anyone interested in evolution would have heard of tiktaalik discovered last year, one more link in the chain connecting fish to land vertrebrates. That's evolution at well above the genus level - so why haven't you heard of it or the other well-known (and many, many more less well known) transitional fossils ?

quote:

---

I am sorry but have you seen the picture of the bone fragments for this species? I refuse to believe that we can know all that is claimed to be known about this organism from a few fragments of bone.

---

The pictures I've seen indicate that we've got the front half of the beast pretty near complete. It's certainly a lot more than "a few fragments of bone". So I have to ask if you've seen the pictures ? Because what you're saying isn't true.

quote:

---

Surely you can agree that a fair amount of assumptions are made and these assumptions are unverifiable. This is the case will pretty much all fossils. I am not saying they aren't true but only they cannot be proven to be true.

---

This is the usual creationist attempt to dispose of the eivdence. The fact is that we do have many fossils with intermediate anatomical structures linking groups - and tiktaalik is only one of the fossils link fish to land vertebrates. This is pretty strong evidence - you may argue that it isn't absolute proof that it's just coincidence that these creatures just happened to exist - and at the right time, too. You could even argue that it's just coincidence that tiktaalik just happened to be found right where it should have been found. But that's really not a convincing explanation is it ? And it becomes even less convincing when you consider the huge number of transitional fossils that have actually been found.There's a big difference between nobody showing you the evidence and you rejecting the evidence that you've been shown out of hand.

quote:

---

Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form. This breaks the biologist most fundamental law. Why will no one address this?

---

It doesn't break a fundamental law. Unless you assuem that life has existed for all time there msut be an exception to the "law" of biogenesis. And in fact the "law" supports evolution, since universal common descent requires only a single violation while creationism requires multiple violations - in the extreme as many as one per species.

I see one obvious problem. You equate "always existed" to "infinitely old". But if past time is finite then the universe could always have existed yet still have a finite age.I also think that it is rather foolish to condemn evolutionists for not believing an impossibility. The "law" of biogenesis is incompatible with the idea of a "first organism". If there is a first organism it cannot come from preceding life by definition. That's not a "loophole" - it's a necessity.