Top questions I think evolutionists need to answer

This is quite a coincidence. I have recently discovered Tim Harwood's site. It was fairly entertaining, to say the least - complete with claims of having produced a new theory (all 3 pages or whatever it was, withno references and no actual predictions or tests.. impressive), and the requisite "nobody has refuted the claims I make..." routine. Guess evolutionm us be all wrong.I will not pretend to be able to address all of the plagiarized material, but I will address one aspect, Haldane's dilemma (which Harwood's page deals with in a most shallow and incorrect manner).However, before I address this, I will need to know whether or not you will be able to understand my response.You see, I have a hard time believing that anyone intelligent and educated enough to understand the myriad of scientific issues presented by Harwood and any number of similar creationists would actually think that such presentations have scientific merit.So, in addition to hearing a bit about your scientific acumen, I should also like for you to outline your criteria for what a transitional is or would be.In my experience, whenever someone actually addresses such 'challenges' without first establishing the criteria, the creationist can simply declare any evidence presented as insufficient.Eagerly awaiting your reply..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
I understand Haldane's Dilemma, so go ahead and post it. I'll understand what you're saying.

---

The very first thing to discuss, then, is why is it a 'dilemma'? Apparently, it was labelled a 'dilemma' (not by Haldane, by the way) because, I would imagine, it was believed that some huge number of mutational differences must be required to account for observed phenotypic differences. Actual observation and nucleotide sequence data, as well as experimental observation, indicates that this is not the case, especially if the mutants are developmental genes or genes that influence development.The 'dilemma', as proselytized by anti-evolutionists, is that there is not enough time for enough fixed, beneficial mutations to have accumulated to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor.This immediately raises some questions, which the purveyors of the 'dilemma' (namely, ReMine and any lay creationist that ha sread his egomaniacal gibberish) avoid at all costs.1. How many mutations are or would be required to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor (ReMine alludes to over 500,000, yet does not at any point offer any sort of substantiation. Apparently, it is just his engineering opinion)?2. What WAS the ape-like ancestor from which humans evolved? (without this knowledge, there is no way at all that any 'minimum number' can be determined. So please, divulge this information. ReMine and his followers refuse to even address such questions maybe you can?After you address those, we can move on.

quote:

---

And as for what I think a transitional would look like... This is taken from Denton's book which is also from Harwood's site.

---

I asked what YOUR definition/criteria of a transitional is. Not only did your quote not provide an answer, it tells me nothing about what objective criteria you have in mind.Please try again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
I understand Haldane's Dilemma, so go ahead and post it. I'll understand what you're saying.

---

​

The very first thing to discuss, then, is why is it a 'dilemma'? Apparently, it was labelled a 'dilemma' (not by Haldane, by the way) because, I would imagine, it was believed that some huge number of mutational differences must be required to account for observed phenotypic differences. Actual observation and nucleotide sequence data, as well as experimental observation, indicates that this is not the case, especially if the mutants are developmental genes or genes that influence development.

​

The 'dilemma', as proselytized by anti-evolutionists, is that there is not enough time for enough fixed, beneficial mutations to have accumulated to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor.

​

This immediately raises some questions, which the purveyors of the 'dilemma' (namely, ReMine and any lay creationist that ha sread his egomaniacal gibberish) avoid at all costs.

​

1. How many mutations are or would be required to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor (ReMine alludes to over 500,000, yet does not at any point offer any sort of substantiation. Apparently, it is just his engineering opinion)?

​

2. What WAS the ape-like ancestor from which humans evolved? (without this knowledge, there is no way at all that any 'minimum number' can be determined. So please, divulge this information. ReMine and his followers refuse to even address such questions maybe you can?

​

After you address those, we can move on.

quote:

---

And as for what I think a transitional would look like... This is taken from Denton's book which is also from Harwood's site.

---

​

I asked what YOUR definition/criteria of a transitional is. Not only did your quote not provide an answer, it tells me nothing about what objective criteria you have in mind.

​

Please try again.

---

Who would have thought - another post-and-run propagandist....