evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

The home page certainly gives the impression that it is Baumgardner's.It *is* written as if Baumgardner was the author - e.g.

NOT a modern human Heidelberg Man

Well the problem seems to be not that you cannot find evidence but that you reject it. Rather than looking at the gaps why not look at the fossils that have been found ? While some of the gaps will be filled others are simply down to the limits of the fossil record. Only a minority of species are preserved as fossils. We can't expect vertabrate fossils to be complete either. Essentially you are making unreasonable and unnecessary demands.As I can see each example is a genuine transitional and a genuine example of evidence for evolution. I have no idea why you reject them - and it certainly makes your story look odd to say the least.

So basically you are saying that a bone is just a bone and there's no difference between a fish jaw and a human jaw. Even I know that is false and I'm no expert on anatomy.The material you quote indicates at least some of the structural similarities that supported the classification. And of course we have far better fossils of other early tetrapods. So why are you so determined to deny the existence of the evidence ?

Well for a start you are mixing up three different fossil species:Pandericthys was the fish originally mistaken for a tetrapod - on the basis of its brain case, not the mandible.Obruchevichthys is the species known only from a mandible.Elginerpeton is another fossil species for which a partial skeleton existsThe error in identifying Panderichthys is NOT a problem for evolution but evidence for it. Pandericthys is still a transitional - it just happens to be closer to the "fish" side of the transition of fish to tetrapods than was originally thought. So in fact you are missing everything. Did you even think about the question of WHY a fish skull should be so like a tetrapod skull ?And I certainly don't want to spare you the effort of having to pretend that all that evidence doesn't exist. You may be determined to keep your mind closed but that does not mean that I have to help you be censoring information you don't want to see or think about.

I've not stretched anything. From your own post:

quote:

---

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).

---

So your claim that far reaching conclusiosn are being reached based on a single partial mandible requires denying the existence of Panderichthys entirely as well as other known fossils such as Icthyostega and Acanthostega. That partial mandible is only one piece of the evidence involved.

Well the basic point that you are missing is that if tetrapods evolved from fish we should expect to find fossils of fish that are very like early tetrapods as well as the early tetrapods being like fish. That we might have difficulty telling which side of the line a particular fossil falls follows from the fact that they will be very similar - and the harder it is to tell the better it is as an example of a transitional.Because Pandericthys was very easy to misidentify as an early tetrapod (you have pointed to no error in the analysis that produced that identification) it is in fact a very good example of a transitional fossil.As to Nebraska man let me remind you that the tooth DID belong to a mammal - and it was never scientifically accepted as belonging to a "man" (that was speculation). And even a partial mandible is rather more than a single tooth.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Coelocanth is more closely related to the line that lead to the tetrapods than the more common ray-finned fishes and that is true of both the modern and the fossil species.And you still have yet to say which "far-reaching" conclusions are heavily reliant on this partial mandible. It isn't even a particularly significant piece of evidence that tetrapods evolved from fish - the other two speciments you mentioned, as well as some you didn't - are far more important for that.

Well your original post only tells us that you found the evidnece and then decided to deny that it existed. We still don't know why you would do that.

Since the material you quoted was indeed evidence your claim that you did not found it is proven false by your own words. We know that you found some very significant evidence - and we know that you also say that you didn't find any. The question is why you would say something that is so obivously untrue.

Exactly - it is not that the evidence is not there. It is just that - for no apparent reason - you call it "inflated claims". Yet it is clear from this discussion that you are not even sure what the claims ARE yet alone how they are supported - or not - by the evidence.So what we can tell is that the evidence is there but you absolutely refuse to even consider it. Well what point is there in looking for it if you are just going to dismiss it out of hand ?

Please explain how the number of ribs and lumbar vertebrae contradict the theory. Remember to show that what is contradicted really IS part of the theory.And you do realise that most criticisms are not directed at the idea of horse evolution but at early attempts to work out the relationships between fossil horses.

You OUGHT to realise that passing off somebody elses material as your own is wrong without needing to check the rules.But rule 6 expressly forbids the use of other peoples material without attributing it to the real author.

Indeed. You found that the evidence for evolution did exist - which is exactly what you did not want. Thus your participation here is focussed on inventing excuses to disregard that evidence.