Creationist Confusion

Mattison0922, that was quite possibly the longest post that I have ever encountered! lol
Anyway, here is my overly simplistic version of the evolution vs. creationism debate. Frankly, I'm too tired from reading that last post to do anything beyond the following...

Evolution- lots of testable evidence supporting it, very little evidence to debunk it.
Creation theory- zero testable evidence to support it. Lots of evidence to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Aeon, I was under the impression that the diffusion of He through zircons was mostly a function of the crystal lattice. While obviously temperature plays a role in any diffusion process, I thought the point was that since the crystal lattice is big enough to accomodate a large atom, such as uranium, the diffusion of He, through the crystal lattice was relatively unimpeded, and thus could be used as reliable dating mechanism. Please advise.

[deletia]

...These are relatively recent documents. Given that 14C has a half-life of more than 5000 years, this is more than within a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, there may be adequate tree ring evidence with which to 'calibrate' said radiodating method. However, I will not back down from the verifiable controversy that does exist surrounding these techniques.

As to the first query, the point of the article is that helium diffusion is accelerated due to elevated temperatures, such that the method results in dates that are too young for the sample that was heated.

Ummm, I think that's the point I was trying to make. This particular dating method doesn't correspond with other methods. In particular it gives dates that are younger than anticipated. So you are essentially confirming my statement that He diffusion from zircons supports the notion that the Earth is younger than some would have us believe.

And yes, radiocarbon techniques are well-established, duplicated and verified by independent means.

This is deceptive. There may be some reliability of radiocarbon dating, when applied to objects alleged to be more recently formed. However, this still relies on assumptions, such as the constant nature of 14C in the atmosphere, which is currently being debated. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating is obviously inappropriate non-living material, such as rocks, and definitely has an upper limit of reliability, even by those in support of the technique of far less than 100,000 years, hardly adequate for dating most fossils and fossil organisms.

And apparently your U-Th-Pb dating system is not without its opponents either. And this is not my area of expertise, but in one study Hills and Richards isotopically analyzed individual grains of uraninite and galena that had been hand-picked from drill core. Only one of the five uraninite samples gave a near-concordant �age� of 862Ma, that is, the sample plotted almost on the standard concordia curve, and Hills and Richards interpreted this as recording fresh formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870Ma. The other four uraninite samples all lie well below concordia and do not conform to any regular linear array. Hills and Richards were left with two possible interpretations. On the one hand, preferential loss of the intermediate daughter products of 238U (that is, escape of radon, a gas) would cause vertical displacement of points below an episodic-loss line, but this would only produce a significant Pb isotopic effect if the loss had persisted for a very long proportion of the life of the uraninite. Alternatively, they suggested that contamination by small amounts of an older (pre- 900Ma) Pb could cause such a pattern as on their concordia plot, to which they added mixing lines that they postulated arose from the restoration to each uraninite sample of the galena which separated from it.

This of course assumes that the Pb in the galenas was also derived predominantly from uranium decay. They plotted their Pb ratios in all their uraninite samples on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, and contended that the pattern of data points did not conform to a simple age interpretation. Instead, they contended that the scatter of points could be contained between two lines radiating from the diagram's origin, lines that essentially represented isochrons for uraninites and galenas from the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium deposits in the same geological region. From the positions of the Koongarra uraninites and galenas on these diagrams they claimed that the galenas contained left-over radiogenic Pb from earlier uraninites as old as 1700-1800Ma (the �age� of the Ranger uranium mineralization), these earlier uraninites being obliterated by the uranium having remobilized at 870Ma, the �age� of the lone Pb-free uraninite sample.

In a different study Carr and Dean isotopically analyzed whole-rock samples from the Koongarra primary ore zone. These were samples of drill core that had been crushed. Their isotopic data on four samples were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram and indicated a non-systematic relationship between the 238U parent and the 206Pb daughter. In other words, the quantities of 206Pb could not simply be accounted for by radioactive decay of 238U, implying open system behavior. They also plotted their four results on a standard 207Pb/206Pb isochron diagram and found that these samples fell on a very poorly defined linear array whose apparent age they did not quantify.

Apparently it is not uncommon to find that �ages� derived from standard 207Pb/206Pb plots are erroneous, even though the data fit well-defined linear arrays ('isochrons'). Ludwig et al. found that this was due to migration of both Pb and radioactive daughters of 238U yielding a 207Pb/206Pb �isochron� giving �superficially attractive results which would nonetheless be seriously misleading� because the derived �age� (in their example) was more than six times higher than the U-Pb isochron �age�. Similarly, Cunningham et al. obtained 207Pb/206Pb isochron �ages� up to 50 times higher than those derived from �more reliable� U-Pb isochrons for whole-rock uranium ore samples, even though �the apparent slight degree of scatter is almost entirely a misleading artifact�. Ironically, at Koongarra the U-Pb isochron using Ludwig yields an �age� of 857 �149Ma (with an MSWD of 13400, tolerably large compared to that obtained with the Pb-Pb isochron), almost identical to the �fortuitous� Pb-Pb isochron �age� obtained using Ludwig's modified algorithm on the combined three data sets (863 �130Ma), as well as Hills' and Richards' single near-concordant 862Ma �age�.

As with any scientific method, there is not 100% veracity

Obviously

But because there are always factors of uncertainty

Exactly my point

However to reiterate, the various methodologies utilizing isotopic carbon are not only very well-tested, some are recalibrated as knowledge grows.

To reiterate this is BS, even with the new Mass Accelerator technologies. Please refer to my above statement radiocarbon dating may have some validity with respect to very recent organisms, but makes no sense geologically, since radiocarbon dating must used on once living things. I will again reiterate that radiocarbon dating relies on a huge assumption in that it assumes the atmospheric 14C levels have always been constant, a huge assumption with evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by mattison0922]

Evolution- lots of testable evidence supporting it, very little evidence to debunk it.
Creation theory- zero testable evidence to support it. Lots of evidence to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, thanks for reading. But why does this have to be a creation vs. Evolution debate? I never set out to prove the creation was plausible over evolution. I have repeatedly denied being a creationist, and have not mentioned God or genesis, other than to plead ignorance. I will further clarify: Evolution is not a scientific fact. It is a theory developed around a particular set of observed facts and speculative reasoning. Because the story agrees with the facts does not make it correct. The story agrees with the facts because it is written to do so. It's written with a knowledge of certain observations, in an effort to explain said observations.

Creationism - the idea that God created all things.

So so, the next question would be for Creationist is: Did God create by natural law as we understand it (Evolutionary Creationist) or by a more miraculous event (Spontaneous Creationism)? Point being with Christians who believe God works through evolution and those who do not, it kind of nullifies the argument that Creationism is a belligerant Christian attack on science. It also would be a hasty generalization to say Christians are inflexible, supporting only Spontaneous Creationism. Also, there are Christians who've made a life study of biology. Sorry if that comes as a shock.

Evolution - Are we talking about variation and adaptation? If so, I'm an evolutionist. If we're talking about trans-species genetic malfuntion that happens 1 x 10^9 years which serves the greater good for species growth and survival then I guess I'm not. To stake a claim like the former would be asking scienists to believe in miracles and, well, you know what that leads to .

[edit on 14-11-2004 by saint4God]

To separate a concept such as microevolution from evolution is absurd. Simplistically by its very nature, the argument is moot vis a vis reductio ad absurdum. Over time, mutations result in phenotypes entirely divergent from original forms, hence speciation. With great certainty, the sequential rock record confirms not only changes in species but also the emergence of classes, orders, even entire phyla, et allini. Emphatically, the evidence is literally carved into stone by natural processes into strata all around the planet.

Mattison, your argument regards not only evolution but also the age of the Earth. Please clarify as to the theory that encompasses your views.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Aeon10101110]

mattison0922

i too am bothered by how the theory of evolution is plastered all over everything as if it was fact, and how if you doubt it for any reason then you are obviously an idiot who just dosnt understand the concepts of science.

well this is one concept of science i know, a theory isnt a fact.

in my physics class we got in a heated argument about the second law of thermodynamics and its effect on evolution. the proffesor eventually got annoyed with questions and told us to look in our books if we really cared that much.

well in the book it said that anyone who points to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a rebuttle to evolution obviously dosnt understand the 2nd law and what it stands for "they are fundamentally mistaken" it said.

then the book went on to not give any proof how they are mistaken. thats the part that bothered me. have you heard about this argument?

Originally posted by mattison0922

[deletia]

As to the first query, the point of the article is that helium diffusion is accelerated due to elevated temperatures, such that the method results in dates that are too young for the sample that was heated.

Ummm, I think that's the point I was trying to make. This particular dating method doesn't correspond with other methods. In particular it gives dates that are younger than anticipated. So you are essentially confirming my statement that He diffusion from zircons supports the notion that the Earth is younger than some would have us believe.

Not in the least! Being that the dates determined for the heated samples are less than that of the underlying country rock, it begs utterly common sense to know that the method is ordinarily reliable (for samples beyond a depth of 3 cm, unaffected by high surface temperatures). After all, false positives are not given indicating inordinantly old rock. That is, if the methodology produced results that indicated a greater age than at most other locations, then one could argue that the method is "saying" that the Earth is older than it actually is. Instead, the opposite is true.

Additionally, this instance reveals that science questions its own methodologies and calibrates for discrepencies. Of course, such is the very nature of the discipline and revelations like the one noted are not at all uncommon. Not only are methods questioned and recalibrated, so are entire models and entire theories, when warranted.

Science too is a religion. More so now than ever before. Evolution has not been proven to be fact, but has more proof than the bible say, as a source of evidence.
Does God exist? Who knows? But if he does who is to say he did not invent and implement evolution unto Earth. Who is to say they agree above the knowledge of God and know what he thinks. The Grand Design may be neither evolution nor creationism; it may be something altogether different. Who cares, we are here we are living and enjoying life. Do you care how you get to a party, if you travel by taxi, bus or train? You are still at the party.

Originally posted by mattison0922

However to reiterate, the various methodologies utilizing isotopic carbon are not only very well-tested, some are recalibrated as knowledge grows.

To reiterate this is BS, even with the new Mass Accelerator technologies. Please refer to my above statement radiocarbon dating may have some validity with respect to very recent organisms, but makes no sense geologically, since radiocarbon dating must used on once living things. I will again reiterate that radiocarbon dating relies on a huge assumption in that it assumes the atmospheric 14C levels have always been constant, a huge assumption with evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by mattison0922]

Why is that BS? Any why do you consider it only valid for young specimens? I think that is because it fits your model. The facts presented are indicative of a confirmation of radiocarbon dating and there are many more instances. Besides, calibration curves are used for 14C and many other methodologies are used, especially with consolidated geologic material.

Not only radiometric dating is employed. Relative ages of rock are compared to isotope/daughter ratios for comparison with the position in strata. Certainly, it is a complex science considered all together and it is not simply a "best guess."

Please, posit for our edification your model, your theory. And remember to present the evidence and recount why the theory explains everything we see in the fossil and rock records.

Originally posted by apw100
Mattison0922, that was quite possibly the longest post that I have ever encountered! lol
Anyway, here is my overly simplistic version of the evolution vs. creationism debate. Frankly, I'm too tired from reading that last post to do anything beyond the following...

Evolution- lots of testable evidence supporting it, very little evidence to debunk it.
Creation theory- zero testable evidence to support it. Lots of evidence to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Special emphasis applied here. Thank you apw100, quite incisive.

To separate a concept such as microevolution from evolution is absurd. Simplistically by its very nature, the argument is moot vis a vis reductio ad absurdum. Over time, mutations result in phenotypes entirely divergent from original forms, hence speciation. With great certainty, the sequential rock record confirms not only changes in species but also the emergence of classes, orders, even entire phyla, et allini. Emphatically, the evidence is literally carved into stone by natural processes into strata all around the planet.

Mattison, your argument regards not only evolution but also the age of the Earth. Please clarify as to the theory that encompasses your views.

Aeon thanks again for another eloquently worded and completely unsubstantiated post. I would LOVE to debate macro vs. microevolution with you. I would love to discuss the molecular genetics of macro vs. microevolution with you. Where do you want to start? Mutation? Transposons? Gene Duplications? Your call again. While I don't care to debate issues regarding the dictionary, thesaurus, or dead languages with you, I reiterate: I would LOVE to discuss anything regarding genetics or marcro vs. microevolution with you. Please... let's get into it.

With respect to your question regarding the age of Earth: I will reiterate my views again for the thread. While many of these theories, evolution, age of the Earth, etc. claim to be a fact. The truth of the matter is that this is scientific theory based on observation and speculation. To ignore statistical outliers that don't support your theory, as you've advised in this particular thread, is in fact 'bad science,' especially when the statistical outliers are capable of fabricating entire disciplines, such as creation science.

The age of the Earth: I don't know. I don't have a theory. I am not qualified to postulate theory at this point in my scientific career. I do know this. There IS evidence suggesting the Earth is younger than some or most would have us believe. If you'd care to debate this with me, I will do that too, despite being at a considerable disadvantage. My views are as follows: Evolution is a theory based on facts, observation, and speculation. While much evidence supports it, a considerable volume of evidence does not; hence, this thread. To refer to said theory as a fact merely stifles scientific progress on alternate theories. People recognize that quantum mechanics is useful to explain some things, yet they continue to search for the Grand Unified Theory. Why? To explain the statistical outliers you've suggested we ignore; to explain observations, and facts not explained by the current popular theory.

Not in the least! Being that the dates determined for the heated samples are less than that of the underlying country rock, it begs utterly common sense to know that the method is ordinarily reliable (for samples beyond a depth of 3 cm, unaffected by high surface temperatures). After all, false positives are not given indicating inordinantly old rock. That is, if the methodology produced results that indicated a greater age than at most other locations, then one could argue that the method is "saying" that the Earth is older than it actually is. Instead, the opposite is true.

Additionally, this instance reveals that science questions its own methodologies and calibrates for discrepencies. Of course, such is the very nature of the discipline and revelations like the one noted are not at all uncommon. Not only are methods questioned and recalibrated, so are entire models and entire theories, when warranted.

Oh I see how it is. A method becomes unreliable when experiments are performed that would say otherwise. Well, I've offered evidence that would suggest radiometric dating methods are suspect. Why is my evidence less valid than yours? Because I don't eloquently word my posts before writing them? Because I am speaking against evolution. Please Aeon, I beg you... what makes you more qualified to present evidence re: this issue than me? Would you care to discuss radiometric dating methods with me on this thread? I would do this as well, despite being at a considerable disadvantage with this topic as well.

Why is that BS? Any why do you consider it only valid for young specimens? I think that is because it fits your model. The facts presented are indicative of a confirmation of radiocarbon dating and there are many more instances. Besides, calibration curves are used for 14C and many other methodologies are used, especially with consolidated geologic material.

Not only radiometric dating is employed. Relative ages of rock are compared to isotope/daughter ratios for comparison with the position in strata. Certainly, it is a complex science considered all together and it is not simply a "best guess."

Please, posit for our edification your model, your theory. And remember to present the evidence and recount why the theory explains everything we see in the fossil and rock records.

Well, Aeon, I suppose this would depend on my having postulated a model, which if you've bothered to read my posts, I've said I don't have.
I have however offered to post evidence that radiocarbon dating is not as reliable as you and others would have us believe.

Apparently, Aeon believes that you either buy in to current scientific dogma or present your own theory. In the absence of this you are a 'fundie' in his eyes. Sorry Aeon, I don't have to have my own theory to not buy into dogma. I don't necessarily believe everything I'm told about 9/11, but I don't have my own theory. At least I've bothered to look at the evidence.

I will at this time draw attention to Aeon's signature:

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

It would appear from this thread that you are interested in exploring nothing other than that which supports your particular theory. Furthermore, your complete closemindedness, and inability to accept anything other than that which your professors fed you demonstrates anything but imagination. While I might not have a theory, I've backed up everything I've ever posted. Where's your evidence Aeon?

Special emphasis applied here. Thank you apw100, quite incisive.

Aeon... have been waiting for your evidence, still waiting... will most likely continue to wait. I have posted at least three specific challenges to you, let's see if you come back with anything other than some nicely worded pile of crap designed to scare off teenagers with a high school understanding of biology.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Aeon10101110]

Originally posted by TheRepublic
mattison0922

i too am bothered by how the theory of evolution is plastered all over everything as if it was fact, and how if you doubt it for any reason then you are obviously an idiot who just dosnt understand the concepts of science.

well this is one concept of science i know, a theory isnt a fact.

in my physics class we got in a heated argument about the second law of thermodynamics and its effect on evolution. the proffesor eventually got annoyed with questions and told us to look in our books if we really cared that much.

well in the book it said that anyone who points to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a rebuttle to evolution obviously dosnt understand the 2nd law and what it stands for "they are fundamentally mistaken" it said.

then the book went on to not give any proof how they are mistaken. thats the part that bothered me. have you heard about this argument?

Republic, thanks for actually asking a question. If it weren't the occasional quiestion and Nygdan, this post would be boring.

This is a common argument in the 'creation vs. evolution' discussions. I will preface this post by stating that no evidence offered here is offered in support of creation theories, although creation theorists may use evidence I've presented. Here's the deal with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Both the creationists and evolutionists are correct. Here is what I mean. To speak of the 2nd Law with existing biological organisms makes no sense. The essence of a biological organism is creation of local order at the expense of 'universal' randomness. This is what biological organisms do. This theory however breaks down pre-biologicals. There is nothing to suggest that anything resembling biological order arises de novo from natural processes (Aeon, care to discuss? That's 4). I would refer you to one of my original posts in this thread, probably on the first page,(could link it, but too lazy) regarding the evolution of the first cell. There is nothing in the natural world that can account for this. Even theories of life from outer space really only translocate the problem to a different location: different location, assumably same difficulties. The 2nd law argues against the spontaneous formation of cellular life in the pre-biotic situation.

Originally posted by The Teller
Science too is a religion. More so now than ever before.

How do you figure? Can you expand on this point? Science is based on data and religion is based on the intangible.

Originally posted by The Teller
Evolution has not been proven to be fact, but has more proof than the bible say, as a source of evidence.

Again, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It's like saying science is more valid than history.

Originally posted by The Teller
Does God exist? Who knows? But if he does who is to say he did not invent and implement evolution unto Earth. Who is to say they agree above the knowledge of God and know what he thinks. The Grand Design may be neither evolution nor creationism; it may be something altogether different.

Great point, thanks for including.

Originally posted by The Teller
Who cares, we are here we are living and enjoying life. Do you care how you get to a party, if you travel by taxi, bus or train? You are still at the party.

Love it!

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by The Teller
Science too is a religion. More so now than ever before.

How do you figure? Can you expand on this point? Science is based on data and religion is based on the intangible.

Well all I meant was that a lot of people believe that science is also just a faith and that we choose to believe in that an offer up our complete trust in something that is not always provable. In fact a lot science has been accepted then disproved as a new scientific idea came along. Flat Earth was hard science once!
The Earth revolving around Sun was once hard science.

Originally posted by The Teller
Evolution has not been proven to be fact, but has more proof than the bible say, as a source of evidence.

Again, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It's like saying science is more valid than history.

Again see above.

And thanks for the nice remarks about my other points.

I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone.
[On the Origin of Species 1859]

Just making sure I understand where you're coming from.

Originally posted by Aeon10101110

To separate a concept such as microevolution from evolution is absurd. Simplistically by its very nature, the argument is moot vis a vis reductio ad absurdum. Over time, mutations result in phenotypes entirely divergent from original forms, hence speciation.

I would like to address this particular issue for the benefit of those on this thread who may be interested. Aeon continues to attempt to 'wow' us with his well-written, jargon-heavy posts meant to intimidate the uninitiated. It's nice when you can make such blanket statements like "(o)ver time, mutations result in phenotypes entirely divergent from original forms, hence speciation," which sound great, without ever offering even a smidgen of proof. Allow me to reinsert the word 'adaptation' in place of microevolution. Microevolution is a fancy way of saying 'selection for particular traits based on certain environmental criteria,' hence adaptation. Adaptation and macroevolution are not the same thing. Here is the fundamental difference: Adaptation favors certain changes in pre-existing genetic information, such as flies who are resistant to DDT. The presence of DDT in the environment doesn't 'direct' mutation of genes, it merely selects for certain pre-existing genetic information.

Macroevolution is the formation of new biological or genetic information. Macroevolution is allege to result from the insertion of new genetic information into the 'global genome,' something for which there is no evidence of, nor any reasonable mechanism postulated.

Mutation merely changes existing genetic information, and is cannot be shown to be responsible for new genetic information.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Nice pretty pics!

Me like drawings

Despite your claims to the contrary, I still feel you are out to prove that the theory is correct.

Perhaps I tend to use a method that is adversarial, but I find its an effective way to look at the issues.

There are very few principles of macroevolution that are actually based on real occurrences.

This importantly hinges on the usage of 'macroevolution'. I usually look at microevolution as 'merely' the change in alleles of a population over a humanly observable or short period of time. Or, for a 'zoological' example, when I hear microevolution I'll take it to mean the popularized example of bird beaks evolving in response to drought/non-drought conditions on some galapagos islands. When I hear 'macroevolution' I tend to think of evolution at or above the level of species, iow, speciation. Speciatio, however, has been observed. The other thing I think of when I hear macro-evolution is the long term, geological time, patterns in widescale paleontological history. Faunal turnover, punctuated equilibrium, and the like. Now, I agree, those particular patterns are only observable in the fossil record, and thus one can't witness them happening on a human timescale. But this is practicially a definitional limitation in so far as one is requirign that 'macroevolution' be limited to these non-directly observable 'deep time' scale occurances. In general, however, I try -not- to use the terms micro and macro evolution. The mechanisms proposed are the same. No one is saying that something different happens on the long term. Its allways populational genetics and shifting alleles.

As this thread has clearly demonstrated there are series of observations that we�ve attempted to explain with the evolution postulate, however we�ve not observed �real occurrences� that would �prove� evolution as a fact.
However thats because it is not disputed that what can be observed has been.

What trees are found in strata of established different ages?

Trees at Joggins fossil cliffs, for example.

See, this is a perfect example. I could go out and try to find , but, why bother?
At TO, Dawson's examination of these 'polystrat' trunks is quoted nicely, and the ultimate conclusion is that these trees, with their roots intact in the very soil they grew in, have simply been buried in place. The thick material in which they are now fossilized is not made up of strata seperated by millions of years, but merely one or two events. A true 'polystrate' fossil would by something similiar, but found to cross the boundaries of entire geological epochs. This would mean that the conventional interpretation for those epochs is wrong, and, furthermore, that the methods used might be entirely wrong. Now, perhaps there is something that TO is leaving out, perhaps there is, say, conventional geolgical information that indicates these trees actually are polystrate, that is, cross multiple strata. But Dawson doesn't seem to make mention of it]. bold and italics added by mattison0922

Please see my above rebuttal regarding primary references. It would seem that some of the areas I�ve bolded would argue against your statements alleging to understand the importance of reading primary refs. TO might be leaving something out, but you�ll probably never know.
I have seen enough of the people at TO to know that they aren't covering up information and lying. When something appears questionable I check it out. Do you think that there is some sort of genuine controversy as to how the joggins petrified tree strata were laid out? I don't think that its particularly reasonable to assume that there is allways something else out there that contradicts every publication. This reference is from over a hundred years ago, if there was controvery over it then I would probably have come across it on the other sites that address this issue. Its possible that no one is doing proper research on this stuff, but, again, I find that extremely unlikley, and, seeing what I've seen of the creationist arguements on this sort of thing (not saying you are one, just to be clear), I know pretty well that they'd be all over it if there were actual papers that demonstrated that these trees were crossing established strata, rather than sitting in thick sediments. And as far as Dawson himself making mention of it, again I think its reasonably low risk to say that because he's saying its one large strata and because the people researching it haven't noted anything about the trees crossing actual multiple strata, that they infact aren't. I mean, I could travel to joggins myself when it comes down to it, but what for? Nothing anywhere suggests that there is reason to.

Also, the Joggins trees, and other fossilized trees, the remains of reptiles are found in them, indicating rapid in place burial.

I will further point out the irony that I feel exists in this statement in light of the original title of this thread. As Aeon pointed out this rapid in place burial could have happened via large scale flooding events.
It probably did happen via a rapid flooding event, with a scale as large as the formation invovled. That has nothing to do with 'The Flood' tho. One excepts to find evidence of floods, since floods are thought to have occured.

I see nothing that indicates an inability to be able to asses the claims of a scientific paper,

It depends on the paper. I have no particular set of qualifications that permit me to understand geology papers, certainly not my biochemistry/molecular bio background. I compensate for that by being in academic community where I can walk two buildings away and have some explain procedures to me. I can further evaluate the merit of the study with a discussion of the methods and conclusions with someone who does know. It is only in the face of overwhelming information and resources that I have reached the conclusions I have.
I find that resources like this web forum and other discussion groups to be helpful in a similar manner. Obviously, there're lots of people out there who make themselves appear more qualified and experienced than they are, so its certainly not as good as face to face contact, but it has its uses.

[xrays and] This researcher completely ignored the control samples: no preservatives found on the control specimen?

well lets look at some of what TO has to say on the subject.

[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/fig3.gif
[size=-3]this is Fig % from Spetner, L.M.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Magaritz, M. (1988) Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. The British Journal of Photography, 135: 14-17. Its is a ""X-ray luminescence results from amorphous body shown in Fig. 4f."
The elements showing up are congruent apparently with the silcone rubber and the chlorine that is used to fix it


Also, Wichramasinghe et al, and I just have to comment on this because it irks me, keeps refering to the specimin as compsognathus, but, even if the feathers are fake, its still not that a member of that genus. its very similar, and of course one specimin famously had been misidentified as compsognathus, but that was more sloppyness than anything.

Interestingly enough, to my knowledge only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula.

Why is this interesting? The furcula doesn't allways ossify and therefore might rot rather than preserve.

. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity

Hoyle and Wickrammsinghe seem to be generally unaware of the depositional mode and way in which the specimin was split into a slab and counter slab in the first place, so I am not going to overturn all the other evidence because of this vague issue of a furcula indentation.

I will again refer to Feduccia who states that �Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it�s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of �paleobabble� is going to change that.�

Yes, Fedduccia is the main modern opponent of the B.A.D hypothesis. But agian I must re-iterate, Feduccia isn't saying that birds didn't evolve, he is saying that they didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but rather from more primitive arboreal archosaurs. Besides which, the claim that archaeopteryx is just a bird is entirely unbeleiveable. Yes it has a perching foot with a reversed hallux, but no it does not have a hand fused into one bone, not it does not have a beak, no it does not have a pygostyle and no it does not have a fused synsacrum. Its extremely unbirdlike, esecially considering that feathers and furculae are no longer restricted to the birds. The only 'strictly' bird like features that it has (besides things like a probable lack of a post orbital bar and such) is the reversed hallux.

the skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This is indicative of the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac,

Numerous sauropods have pneumatized vertebrae, it is not a feature unique to birds. Majunolathus, a theropod from madagascar, also has extensive pneumatization. A paper presented at this years SVP indicated that the probably also had abdominal air sacs.

Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird�s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds).

IOW transitional in size. Also, the brain in archaeopteryx is "Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds "
www.talkorigins.org...

large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying[...] the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird�s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight.

But none of this means that archaeopteryx is not a transitional, and it speaks against the feathers being fake. If archaeopteryx did fly, then it should have adaptations for flight, such as those above and others.

A major difficulty with this is the low density of bird carcasses coupled with the fact that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, presents a difficulty in that the animal must lie on the seafloor, which is unusual for a dead bird.

And therefore over the millions of years that these populations of animals occupied the coasts of this area, only 7 or so have been preseved at all and fewer have been preserved belly up.

�But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?�

See, the problem with Darwin on this matter is that paleontology was in its infancy when he was around and considering these things. Archaeopteryx itself hadn't been discovered, and of course neither had any of the dinobirds. Darwin wasn't really qualified to speak about the occurance of transitionals in the fossil record, since the fossil record was largely unknown in his day. More importantly, Darwin asked that question rhetorically, and then moved on to answer it. he noted that the fossil record isn't going to be able to preserve everything, and in fact will miss out on a lot of earth biological history.

this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].�

It was the most serious object, in the late 1800s. Today it is not.

record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin�s time. By this I mean that [...]what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.

All well and good and most people agree with Raup. Instead of simple gradual progressive transition from one form to the next, there is a large variety of forms, all adapting to their different environments and having their own phylogenetic history. This is not the same as saying macroevolution doesn't happen, rather, its an argument against clear trendy progression.

So Darwin�s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years

Darwin's issue of the existence of transitional forms is different than what raup is talking about. Raup isn't arguing that there aren't organisms with the requisite features. He is arguing against phyletic gradualism as the tempo of evolution.

. Dr. David Raup, it former Dean, is more qualified than you or I summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil record.

I agree completely, he certainly is, and he seems to be saying that simple transitions from 'little horseliek animal to large horses' don't exist. Similarly, simple progressions from dinosaurs to archaeopteryx to birds don't exist, because the phylogenetic

study.� Stephen Jay Gould, �Evolution�s Erratic Pace,� Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.

Notice, he is talking about the pace of evolution, not the occurance of it. And gould is not arguing that there aren't transitionals, even he in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory plainly admits that there are observed fossil examples of phyletic gradualism. However he is practically famous for arguing the the primary mode of speciation in the fossil record is punctuationism, where in the lack of lots of transitionals is infact an artifact of the fossil record and the 'peripatetic' mechanism of speciation, not a lack of speciation in the first place.

places like say The British Museum have impeded this kind of research. Why?

Why should the BM grant more access to archaeopteryx? Wickramasingh's analysis was teribly flawed and the specimins are clearly not frauds. Also, the BM doesn't control all the specimins. Are you suggesting that the most rational answer is that they know its a fraud and are covering it up?

Operative phrase �supportive of.� This is distinctly different than �factual evidence of�

They are supportive of birds comming from dinosaurs, yes, thats a hypothesis and it will allways remain one. They are factual evidence that evolution occurs, irregardless if it was from dinosaurs to birds.

All evidence provided thus far is offered in support against the argument that evolution is a scientific fact.

How is is supportive of macroevolution not occuring? They are saying that the evidence supports them evolving from basal archosaurs.

And yet, there ceases to be ANY evidence.

The ghost lineages imply that these organisms are older and more diverse than teh record indicated. You previously cited triassic bird like prints as indicative of the prior existence of birds. So how can you say that there is no evidence?

So it may only appear logical in the current context of the understandings of some. In reality, it�s speculation.

Sure, its speculation that the phylogeny has some particular shape or another, but not speculation that macroevolution occurs at all.

Of course, it is admitted that late Cretaceous maniraptorans are not the actual ancestors of birds, only �sister taxa�.

Well, yes. Its not so much 'admited' like its a problem, its simply when the fossils are preserved.

Oh I see, �you�d have to say.� With all due respect to your education, how are you more qualified than scientists who�ve been working in the field for years and actually handled specimens and actually published peer reviewed articles to make this judgement?

Ok fine, what makes dodson more qualified than Holtz, Sereno, Horner, Padian and the majority of theropod workers and archosaur paleontologists who agree that birds have evolved from theropod dinosaurs? I've seen the issues that people have brought up wrt this issue, and the only mildly decent arguement that anyone has ever made is fedduccias arguement that there is rampant convergence between dinosaurs and birds. This is the only scientific explanation for the data. However, its completely implausible, to have feathers evolving twice or multiple times and all the over synapomorphies that his ideas require merely be coincidental. Convergence doesn't operate by making organisms under different pressure develop similar structures. It makes reptiles, sharks, and mammals look generally similiar when they are all put in the water and made to do very similiar things (ie sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins) but 'full' birds and dinosaurs are under entirely different selective pressures. Just becuase there are still issues on the subject that are unclarified doesn't mean that its unsolved. Birds clearly did not evolve from basal archosaurs. There are no characteristics shared between them to the exlusion of other archosaurs (dinosaurs included). There are extremely few bird characteristics that are not in theropod dinosaurs. And if dodson and fedduccia were correct, how does that count as support for the proposition that macroevolution doesn't occur?

Interesting. I was unaware of this. Please provide refs. as I�d like to investigate.

References forthcomming.

Clear to who, clear to you? Not clear to every scientists in the field.

its a quasi walking ape showing a trend torwards increasing brain size and human like facial and dental features. What else could a transitional between a man and a chimp look like?

it is suggested that these bone fragments are from a prehistoric human, there is considerable evidence to suggest it was not much different than a chimp.

A transitional, by definition, is going to have lots of features that are from the 'primitive' group, and features that are from the 'advanced' group.

I�m sorry, perhaps you could elaborate on said [gait] similarities between �Lucies� and humans.

Coincidentally, here is a recent Nature article on something like the subject.


But this and others, like (W. Jungers Nature 297)do seem to confirm that australopithecines were more arboreal than i realized. However, they are not saying that it wasn't also capable of a bipedal gait, and the bones involved in their gait do appear to be transitional between chimp and man


Also, quoting Jungers "A. afarensis had already attained forelimb proportions similar to those of modern humans but possessed hindlimbs that were relatively much shorter".

I don't have acess to the original article, but here is a 'Nature News' brief on R. Crompton, Journal of Human Evolution 35 1998, a study that analyzed the biomechanics of the lucy skeleton and compared erect stance and bent knee stance. They rule out chimp like walking altogether, and also conclude that the bent knee walk was 'much less mechanically effective, [with] heat generation so much greater, that an erect carriage was favoured'.

here one can find an article that examines the wrists of Aust. and find "the wrists [...] are like those of modern humans in that they lack the putative knuckle-walking characteristics "
.
Or there is Latimer, B. & Lovejoy, C. O. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78 1989 " Calcaneal morphology is unequivocal in its partitioning of quadrupedal pongids and bipedal hominids."pubmed abstract

here is ASU's Institute of Human Origns take on it
"As in a modern human's skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces) which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap) from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large, and are thus adapted to handling the added weight which results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance. "

Susman, R. L., Stern, J. T. & Jungers, W. L. Folia Primatol. 43 1984 probably have it best by stating "Numerous studies of the locomotor skeleton of the Hadar hominids have revealed traits indicative of both arboreal climbing/suspension and terrestrial bipedalism.These earliest known hominids must have devoted part of their activities to feeding, sleeping and/or predator avoidance in trees, while also spending time on the ground where they moved bipedally"pubmed abstract. The australpithecines aren't acting like pure chimps, and aren't acting purely like humans. They're occupying a transitional form, with chimp like characteristics and apre like characteristics.

I am sure that you are aware of �convergent evolution� as Aeon felt it necessary to point out to me.

Also, on convergent evolution, if it were to occur, it'd be an example of macroevolution. So you can't maintain that australpithecines are animals that have converged on the human type, and still say macroevolution doesn't occur. Unless you would say that they were all instantaneously created and the similiarity isn't due to convergence or any other evolutionary phenomenon.

Looks like an amphibious creature to me. How does this �prove� evolution.

How else do you explain the conserved 'deep homology' between primitive amphibians, mice, lungfish, reptiles, and these fossil forms with half limbs and limb-fins? The only acceptable explanation is that these structures are homologous, that they are similiar because they are an inherited trait handed down to them from more primitive types, which, shown here, -are- present in the fossil record.

As I said, it looks like an amphibian to me. Fish-like and amphibian-like features do not equal transitional fossil.

Then what would you consider a transitional, if not an animal with feature intermeadiate between two groups? What more could a transitional tetrapod-fish limb look like other than a limb with numerous solid boney elements in similiar positions and in enough numbers to account for all 'later' variations on limb bones and having the fin rays of actual fish? What else but macroevolution could account for amphibians under specific and unique 'microevolutionary' pressures having the same skeletal make up as reptiles under entirely different 'microevolutionary' pressures? What explains find only weak limbed organisms whose obviously primitive limbs can't even support their own body out of water in one era and only find stronger more adapated to terrestrial lifestyles in another?

But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups, including the lineage leading to the tetrapods of the Famennian. This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span.�(Clack, J.A., Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2002).

Ah, I had been considering purchasing that text on a few occasions. Looks like its interesting. Why is it considered implausible that these very tetrapod like forms can evolve into actual tetrapods over 5 to 10 million years? Without any other land animals to compete with, they should be spreading over a wide range very quickly.

Based on observable evidence, such as the rate of natural, unrepaired mutation in an organisms DNA for example.
But that doesn't answer the question of how much variation there is in this population of pre-tetrapods. What evidence does one have of mutation rates in pre-tetrapods anyway? And how much of that evidence is based on small peripheral populations, seperate from the large central populations, where speciation is thought to occur? We're talking 5 to 10 million years here. And to accomplish what? The loss of rays in the limbs? A seperation of the pectoral girdle from the skull? Stronger ossifications of cartilagenous elements? 5-10 million years to go from tetrapod like animals to basal tetrapods?

More problems: Key morphological transitions, such as the purported change from paired fins to limbs with digits, remain undocumented by fossils.

And yet, the transition from ray like fins to lobe like fins to primtive limbs that can't work out of water and then to limbs that can support the organism.

I repeat the operative phrase �Key morphological transitions� remain undocumented by fossils.� If and when they are found, it�ll be a step closer to �fact,� but nonetheless distinctly not a �fact.�
What key transitions are remaining to be found if one has fish limbs, boney lobed fins, fins with bones and rays, fins without rays, very weak limbs, weak limbs, and strong limbs? What transitional in the bird sequence remian if one has very simple protofeathers, symetric non-flight feathers, symmetric flight feathers, increasing arm to hind limb ratios, decreasing tail lenght, increasing pneumatiztion of the skeleton, loss of cranial bones, bipedalis, tridactly, increasing ossification of the clavicles and furculae and all the rest? And on humans and chimps, one has very chimp like animals showing human dental structures

This is not the point. The point is that there is considerable dissention,

Fedduccia and Larry Witmer are not 'considerable dissention'. While Dodson sensibly states that these organisms probably aren't part of some 'progressive' sequence, he isn't presenting anything that contradicts or refutes the large number of shared derived characters between these animals, and he isn't, I beleie, making the bizzare case that there has been rampant convergence between animals under entirely different conditions. There isn't considerable dissent, there is considerable consensus on the topic.

not to mention homo erectus and the other transional 'ape-men'.

Perhaps you�re interested in the comments of Brown, an Australian evolutionary paleoanthropologist re: Homo Erectus: �Nearly every introductory and advanced text written on human evolution in the last four decades lists thickened cranial-vault bone as one of the features distinguishing Homo erectus from H. sapiens and other hominids.

here is Dr. Brown's response to the Kow swamp material being erectus, he does not beleive that they are classifiable as erectus nor that erectus is just some far end of variation within sapiens. I don't doubt that there are features of erectus in modern man, because modern man evolved from erectus.

Thus, the distinctiveness of the Kow Swamp remains stands re-affirmed.

Again, Dr. Brown does not beleive that the Kow Swamp specmins are erectus. They share some feature, but that doesn't make them members of erectus.

The modern Australian aborigines had the largest sample (202 individuals), and were found to share an astonishing 14 of the 17 Homo erectus traits.

And did these reseachers find conclude that homo erecuts and homo sapiens should be synonomized or not? Were they unable to distinguish group samples into the erectus type and the sapiens type or no?

The most recent evidence indicates that only a handful of features distinguish the presumed two species of man, and even these are of dubious validity.

I don't see how an apomorphic definition is required. Typoligical thinking is generally rejected in the biological sciences these day. The specimin as a whole is what is looked at, along with other factors. Are macintosh and Larnach saying that there are persistent erectus characters in some populations of humans or that all specmins of erectus are infact sapiens?

Nygdan, would love to discuss with you. Maybe we should start with Piltdown man, or possibly Peking man, how about New Guinea Man?

Why would one talk about piltdown man, since its a known fraud?

Except for the above noted lack of any evidence showing a crossing of this barrier

I don't think that there is such any such thing as a kind barrier in the first place. I wouldn't personally include erectus and sapiens in a different kind, but they are different species. Typological 'kinds', 'Baramins' as the creationist camp calls them, are non existent, they are figments of the imagination. One recognizes say a 'bird' kind, because all living representatives of this particular clade are advanced crown group birds. If the feathered dinobirds and the rest of the dinosuars were still around, one wouldn't be able to class them into 'bird' and 'not bird' groups. Based on what? Feathers? Flight? Presence of a bony tail? What exactly? The point is that there is no kind barrier in the first place, so how could anything prevent dinosaurs from becomming birds or chimps becomming men to start off with? Given that there is no reason to think that they can't, given in fact that populations of organisms are variable and undergo adaptation and speciation, and then given the range of fossil evidence and the distribution of characteristics, what other plausible conclusion can one reach? Evolution, macro, micro, it clearly happens.

Furthermore Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve.

source
Examples include the Calaveras skull,
"this was a modern skull discovered in 1866 in California in Pliocene deposits (2 to 5 million years old). A few scientists did believe it genuine, but it was always widely considered to be a hoax. Personal testimonies and geological evidence indicate that it is probably a modern Indian found in nearby limestone caves, and that it was planted as a practical joke by miners. Tests have shown it to be recent, probably less than 1000 years old. (Dexter 1986; Taylor et al. 1992; Conrad 1982) "

the Castenedolo skeletons

" According to Boule, an official report on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in 1969 confirmed this. (Conrad 1982)"

Reck�s skeleton,

Unfamiliar with this

Swanscombe skull,[...] Vertessz�llos fossil

"Swanscombe Man: two cranium fragments discovered in 1935 and 1936 by Alvan Marston in England, and a third fragment, discovered in 1955, which fit with the earlier ones. The bones are very thick, with a mixture of primitive and modern features, and an estimated brain size of 1325 cc. They are probably from an archaic Homo sapiens, a view compatible with their estimated age of 200,000 to 300,000 years (Day 1986).

Vertesszollos Man: a few tooth fragments and part of an adult cranium found in Hungary. The cranial fragment is very thick and broad, with a mixture of modern and primitive features. This is also considered to be probably an archaic sapiens. This would match its age, which has variously been estimated to be from 160,000 to over 350,000 years. (Day 1986) "

If macroevolution weren't occuring and all the sorts of animals in existence now once co existed, there wouldn't be any ability to sort them into different fauna over different times in different strata. The overwhelming majority of the fossil record shows this phenomenon of faunal turnover and sorting. Some archaic looking material in some slightly younger than expected strata simply is not convincing. Why do you find them convincing?

The differences between humans and chimps are in some ways slight. Increased brain size, erect stance, more mobile fingers. They'd all fall under the term 'microevolution' if microevolution is 'below kinds'.

Diagreed. A chimp is a chimp, a human is human. There is no evidence of microevolution causing one organism to change into another. To my knowledge, speciation, is hardly ever if at all referred to as microevolution.
So if speciation is macroevolution then even macroevolution has been observed.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...-fish
www.talkorigins.org...-speciation

I mean, is it or isn't it macroevolution? Thats the problem. If macroevolution is speciation, then what process prevents drastic changes in speciation? If populations can adapt, then what is preventing 'macroevolution'?

Even the bird to dinosaur transition almost starts to fall 'below the level of kinds' of animals and into the 'microevolutionary' change level.

BS. Dinosaur to bird transitions have never been classified as microevolution. Please point out a reference where this is referred to this way.
The change from somethign like herrerasaurus to modern pigeons is of course huge, and I am not claiming that, if one accepts the existence of 'kinds' (which I do not accept as a biological term) is 'inter-kind' change. What I am saying is that the change from things like archaeopteryx to birds, or microraptor and other very bird like dinosaurs shows that the 'morphological gap' between birds and dinosaurs is extremely small. Birds, again, have extremely few features that dinosaurs don't. How can one seriously contend that more co-ossification of vertrebrae is huge and fanatastic 'inter-kind' change? Or more reduction of the tail bones, or more fusion of the hand bones? Kinds simply do not exist in biology.

If 'macroevolution' wasn't occuring, then one wouldn't be finding these organisms with characters of two different groups.

Disagreed. If macroevolution is occuring we would find these transitional organisms.
Do I misunderstand you here?
I think we understand each other. If Macroevolution occurs, then transitionals exist, and some should be fossilized. One would recognize transitionals best by finding fossils with either intermediate feautures or combinations of primitive and advanced features. One finds them. One finds dinosaurs with feathers. Birds with clawed hands and long bony tails. One finds organisms with very boney fins, or very primitive limbs attached to their skull case. The expectations of the theory, its 'predictions', are confirmed. If macroevolution does not occur, then one would expect not to find 'deep homology' or faunal succession or any seperation between fauna. And knowing tht alleles change their frequencies in populations of organisms and that adaptations occur thru natural selection, if macroevolution didn't occur then it would have to be becuase there is some biological process that 'halts' adaptation at some arbitary 'kind' level. None of these 'predictions' of the 'no macroevlution' theory are found.

And while not every type of transitional that probably had to have occured has been found, and, undoubtedly, not every kind has even been preserved, that hardly means that these ones that do exist aren't telling everyone anything.

Didn�t say there weren�t telling anyone anything, they are obviously telling you and I completely different things.
Well what are they telling you then? You've been saying, in general, that macroevolution isn't established strongly as a biological phenomenon. Yet one has observed speciation in modern times, the knowledge that populations adapt to their environment thru natural selection, and the lack of any biological process that prevents the types of change that are observed in the fossil record, not to mention chronologicla sequences in the fossil record from 'primitive' to 'advanced' forms. What is all of this telling you if not that evolution occurs?

I agree that everything is not known. However, the evolution obviously occurs.

Microevolution obviously occurs.
Again, i really think that one needs to explain why microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not, or at least give adequate defintions that distinguish between the two.

There are transitional fossils. Not every fossil that one would like to have is there, but there are organisms that can't be neatly fit into one kind of creature or another.

This admitted controversy, and you can still claim it as a fact?
The controversy of the lack of some stages in some 'major' transitions? I think it unreasonable to reject the theory merely because a representative of every population invovled in every transition has not been preserved in the fossil record, let alone found.

The existence of feathered birdlike dinosaurs and fish like limbed animals attests to this. The existence of very ape like organisms walking around the african savana, showing increasing brain capacities over time and more and more human like stances and gaits and technology shows that man did indeed evolve from more primitive organisms.

We have systematically demonstrated each of these to be controversial, and not without their opponents.
These have not been demonstrated to be controversial, just because some people disagree with them does not make them controversial. On the bino-birds, the only people who disagree are people who promote 'rampant convergence'. This is entirely and utterly unreasonable. Just because fedducia and some others refuse to accept this does not mean that there is a controversy.

And the overall structure of the fossil record also shows that organisms have been segregated into seperate fauna in time. One doesn't find Dinsoaurs in permian beds. One doesn't find chimps and dinosuars co-existing.

Need I cite numerous inconsistencies in the fossil record that make no sense in the context of evolution in addition to those already posted? Please refer to the section above, particularly with respect to plant fossils.

Its as solidly supported as any scienfitic theory.

Disagreed. Gravity is a solidly supported scientific theory, DNA--> RNA--> Protein is a solidly supported scientific theory. Evolution, by it�s very nature will never be �proven.�
Why? Because one doesn't observe frogs giving birth to lizzards? One doesn't observe DNA or gravity either. One can only know gravity by its affects. Even DNA and proteins can only be seen thru things like x-ray diffraction and the like, thats not observing them directly, thats looking at their effects and infering their existence. One can't observe quarks or electrons, but one can still see their effects. One can theorize that they exist, predict some properties and consequences, and then see if those predictions hold true. Heck, even one one diretcly observes something, its still going thru the analyzing 'experimental' filter of your senses. Merely because one sees something doesn't mean it exists. If you want to reject "macroevolution" because you've never witnessed it, then you'd also have to reject almost any chemical reaction, or the existence of transitional states within those reactions that are too small to see or too ephemeral to be 'observed' in the same manner than you want to observe macroevolution. Besides which, if you are including speciation as macroevolution, then it has been observed.

Nygdan, thanks again for your efforts.

And I thank you for being able to have a rational discussion about this and keeping it civilized. This is a topic that often crumbles into 'much heat, little light' category, but I think we are bringing up some valid issues and concerns.

Ahhh... Nygdan, welcome back! I was starting to worry, although I suppose that last post was long and took some effort on your part. I've only had time to glance, as I am at work, but you've made a great post! I see there is much left to discuss. Furthermore, I can see you've brought forth some evidence that I was unaware of. Please permit me to some time to formulate an intelligent response.

Thanks!

Yes i was away for a few days and couldn't sit down and address this in total for a while, so i had to break it up a bit. anyways, looking forward to the response.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

Darwin was a racist. He thought that black people looked a lot like apes, and his theory of evolution was based on racism.

I also believe in a round earth and geocentrism--earth is center. The earth was created on the first day and the sun on the FOURTH. And the Bible makes a distinction between "the heavens and the earth," and if the earth were just another heavenly body, where's that distinction? Then there's Joshua 10:12--Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, Sun stand THOU still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

I know some people think, well, people wouldn't know about the earth turning, that's why that was said. I ask--how hard is it for anyone to understand the earth turns if it actually does?

Geocentricity does away with the idea of evolution or ETs.

www.geocentricity.com...