evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

This seems to fit in this thread, if not, someone direct me to an appropriate one.
Can someone answer a few questions for me? I used to believe in ToE until I was challenged to provide actual physical proof of the evidence for evolution. Despite the constant claims of unending evidence,I am unable to find any. Having lost faith in the theory. ID seems very appealing to me.
I have been following a few of the threads here and I went to the Talk Origins site as suggested. Unfortunately I wasn’t very satisfied with the information provided as in the following examples, which admit there is very little evidence, if any: Taken from TALK. ORIGINS
The next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago (Gingerich and others 1983). Although it is known only from fragmentary skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales
Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)When the synapsids are investigated further it seems as if there is serious disagreement as to what they actually are:
Evolutionists acknowledge that they cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals (Carroll, p. 398). That is why Roger Lewin (1981), summarizing a scientific conference on the matter, wrote: The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.
The best Carroll (p. 410) can say is that [i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet (emphasis mine). However, as Carroll (p. 392) points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.
This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll (p. 392) writes, Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic. There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of advanced cynodonts from the Upper Triassic (Carroll, p. 624). It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.The following is from another website claiming to provide proof of transitional forms, by GR Morton.378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508).
[Did someone say something about the scientific method?]-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)
368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod. This creature also shows the coronoid fangs of the Panderichthys but they were also smaller than the panderichthyid fangs. Daeschler notes that this animal also has the parasymphysial fans of a tetrapod. (Daeschler, 2000, p. 307)As you can see each example is based on very little fragmentary remains or the critical areas are missing. One of the examples gives a mandible as evidence of a complete genus. Much similar verbiage was printed about the coelacanth and it was almost universally accepted by evolutionists as having transitional features until live ones were discovered and dissected, revealing none of the previously known proto limbs .My question about fossil evidence is then: Does any verifiable fossil evidence exist for transitional forms?I also noted that the Talk. Origins site stated that there were very few pre Cambrian fossils, yet most of the literature I have found states that the pre Cambrian is rich with fossils, which is true?

Did you want to criticize my sentence structure? Or are you really asking?

I simply find it hard to see how a mandible can be proof of anything, other than some animal had a mandible. And you say creationists are gullible.This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 01-18-2005 02:37 AM

If the partial mandible of Elginerpeton were of an animal similar to a platypus what conclusions might be reached? In the example of Panderichthys, it was believed to be an early tetreapod until a complete fossil was discovered, when it was found to be a fish.On the original skull fragments found and reconstructed, of "Lucy", a paleontologist, not a creationist, remarked that it was composed "primarily of plaster of paris and imagination."Am I missing something here? If you have better examples, that is what I am looking for. Perhaps you could also notify the Talk. Origin website creator, and that would save people like me from spending so much time on these very poor examples which are posted on sites which claim to give proof.

Like so many young people, I actually thought that educators and scientists wouldn't teach as factual [and they do teach that ToE is fact] a theory that appears to have very little, if any, substantiation. I made the mistake of trusting people whose job it is to educate. Even these examples I've given claim to be proof. Well, I won't get fooled again.

Yes, I didn't have my coffee yet, but that doesn't negate my basic argument that far reaching conclusions are being made on the basis of a partial mandible, although in just two posts you have streched it to a complete skull?

I didn't realize that I had to prove personal history. Ask any high school student you meet how it is being taught today. If you find some that are even aware there is an alternate theory I'll be surprised. Anyway, I was responding to a slur on my intelligence, not a discussion of the facts. Which category is your post?

Which new species has formed over the last hundred years?Life changed over millions of years? By that do you mean many species that once lived are now extinct? Or do you mean that one organism, that lived in a marine environment, developed lungs, feet and hair, then moved onto land. Finding that the neighborhood was less desirable than advertised, it then developed flippers and baleen etcetera, in order to move back? [that's how I understand current whale evolution theory]Proof or evidence, I've yet to see either posted here. that doesn't negate my statement that those sites claim to provide proof.

I fail to see how you can say that classifying an animal as a tetrapod, then "oops, it doesn't have feet after all, it's really just a fish," qualifies as more evidence. If a creationist were to submit something like that he would receive 10 replies lecturing him about the scientific method and jumping to conclusions.My apologies about the skull stretching remark, I kept switching the two in my mind. However there are many instances of fragmentary [by that I mean a very small portion of the animal as in the partial mandible example]evidence touted as the foundation for an entire genus. Let us not forget Nebraska Man.

From my Webster Encyclopedic Edition. proof, evidence and argument sufficent to induce belief. Is this just a ploy to get me off track, or can we find more minutiae to wrangle over?By the above definition,most of the posters on this site, as well as the previously mentioned sites are offering proof, or if you prefer, evidence and argument sufficent to induce belief.

Actually, I don't care to get into a detailed discussion where biologists don't even agree. How many million Drosop. generations will it take for them to actually mutate into a viable fly of another type? Last time I checked they were still fruit flies. What evidence is there of one bacteria actually mutating into a completely different viable bacteria, with distinctive caracteristics as to the type of nutrient or environment it requires? Why would that [the bacteria example]be evidence of evolution?No, I don't want to be the first in that field.

I merely mentioned it as an example of a very small fragment being misidentified. How is that misrepresentation? I didn't realize it was a sore spot. The coelacanth is a much better example, in that complete fossilized specimens were incorrectly believed to possess features that "oops, weren't there after all!"

No, since the banana has similar DNA, I believe we are descended from bananas. They exhibit many characteristics similar to modern man.

Quote" Perhaps you could give us an example of something you might consider to serve as evidence of evolution? Since you seem to discount all evidence presented to you, perhaps your belief is such that no amount or detail of evidence will ever stand against it."No., I am looking for the evidence that is supposed to already exist. I reject claims that seem to be a coelacanth, or possibly a tetrapod that is not a tetrapod afer all, but a fish. I was just wondering how mutation of bacteria which replicate at an incredible rate, compared to the mammals, can be applicable?

I see what you are getting at here. How does this example differ from the coelacanth, since it seems to be that it depends on the "interpretation" of the discoverer what bones it actually contains. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that this sounds almost exactly like the coelacanth story. Which is why I'm reluctant to accept Clack's claims that the the tetrapods she discovered are unique.As I said before I just mentioned Nebraska man as an example of little evidence leading to a wrong conclusion.