Also, if evolution happend, why are there not trans forms that are alive today? As far as I know, there are no incomplete species in the fossil record, or alive today. How does evolutionary theory explain this?
They really got to you, didn't they?
Evolutionary theory doesn't predict "incomplete" species, it predicts species that are intermediate between two taxa. They are "complete" in every way, however.
The number of intermediate species are legion, Archaeopteryx lithographica posess' a character mix between modern birds & therapod dinosaurs, for for example.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
No, I don't think we evolved, and I still think that creation has much better evidence for it than evolution. I'm appearantly not a good debater at the moment, you guys need a PhD that really knows his stuff(Kent Hovind, Carl baugh, Ken Ham, ect.), one of those guys will give you a run for your money. I am just unprepared for serious debates, and so am not likley to be back for a while(I'll be back however!).
Baugh and Hovind have diploma-mill "doctorates", not worth the paper they are printed on. They probably know less than many of the people here. Even other creationists aren't that impressed (there was a little spat between Answers in Genesis and Hovind, because even AiG recognise how poor some of Hovind's arguments are). Ham's reputation isn't a lot better.
Since people have given you some links, allow me to give you a link to my favorite website on evolution, Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences for Evolution. It will give you a good understanding of what we expect to see if evolution were true (the only way to test a scientific theory), and the confirmatory evidence. It lists evidence for evolution in several different fields that rely on a variety of different methodologies.
It also has a link to a site at TrueOrigins that tries to debunk Theobald's evidence, as well as a refutation of the TrueOrigins claims.
Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Actually, the existence of transitional fossils have become incredible support in favor of evolution. Check out the link; look especially at the transition between reptile and mammal, since it describes the jaw joint evolving into the mammalian inner ear, which is related to embryonic evidence that you also insist doesn't exist.
Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
I've checked it out. I suggest you check out what critics say about this, and think for yourself about how data is used.
The fact that reptiles and mammals have jaws, and thus a similar pattern, is not the strong evidence for evolution you guys claim.
Plus, it is based on a faulty assumption, namely that similarities are the product of common descent passing those traits down.
Even with evolutionary theory, we see exact same similarities, or as exact as what you are pointing to here, arise convergently, such as the mammalian ear-bones. Evolutionists now posit that the same 3 ear bones arose convergently in at least 2 different evolutionary paths in mammals, and was not passed on.
Now, it could be that they did not evolve from earlier forms, but just were created that way. For sake of argument though, let's assume they evolved convergently. if such similarities can occur without being passed on from a mutual ancestor, then it becomes quite clear stitching together a bunch of pics showing jaws between reptiles and mammals, and insisting that because reptiles had jaws with similar traits to mammals, that this indicates reptiles evolved into mammals, well, that is quite absurd on the face of it.
You can claim you think this happened, but in no way does the data indicate that unless you assume first it had to happen that way. The similarities in jaws means absolutely nothing provable in context since such similarities don't mean they had to be the result of common ancestry passing the similarities on.
quote:The fact that reptiles and mammals have jaws, and thus a similar pattern, is not the strong evidence for evolution you guys claim.
This is interesting. I'm trying to figure out whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what is written (which would make you a liar) or whether you have a serious problem with reading comprehension (which would make you illiterate). Perhaps you are simply too delusional to really understand anything that goes against your faith.
Let me try to explain this to you. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. Trace out the words with your finger if it helps you.
It is known that the jaw bone of a reptile consists of four bones, while that of the mammal is a single bone. The inner ear of the reptile has but a single bone, while the inner ear of the mammal has three. It was known that three of the bones in a mammal embryo that correspond to three bones that in a reptile embryo develop into the jaw instead migrate into the ear and (after two of the bones fuse) develop into inner ear bones.
I know that you don't like developmental biology, and that you don't like how developmental biologists see correspondences, but nonetheless biologists claim to see these correspondences. How do we check whether they are correct? Well, base on this claim, and base on common descent, these biologists make a prediction:
Two of the inner ear bones in mammal ears evolved from jaw bones in reptiles.
There. That is the prediction. If developmental biologists are simply making up the claim that they see obvious correspondences, or if common descent were not true, then there would be no reason whatsoever for this prediction to be fullfilled. So, do we see any other evidence that these two bones in the inner ear of mammals evolved from the jaws of reptiles?
A remarkable fossil sequence is found showing the transitions that you claim cannot be seen. We have pre-mammals with ears and jaws like reptiles. We have primitive mammals that have ears and jaws like mammals. And we have fossils that show the bones in intermediate states. What is more, these fossil occur in the right stratigraphic order: lower down, the bones are more jaw-like and less ear-like; higher up the bones are less jaw-like and more ear-like.
These in-between fossils did not have to exist. God did not have to create creatures that have bones that are in between looking like pre-mammal jaws and mammal ears. The flood did not have to deposit them so that more jaw-like boned animals are found lower than more ear-like boned animals. Yet your god has quite the sense of humor.
Now, in all of this, where am I saying that reptile and mammals have jaws, and this is evidence of evolution? Where in the web page does it say that the evidence for evolution is that reptiles and mammals have jaws? Are you really so illiterate that you cannot understand what is written, or are you merely dishonest that you are going to misrepresent what I have written?