[gore3000]

Sorry, but when a theory makes a call for future findings and facts, and those findings and facts are found through study and research, that is called science.

Problem is that science keeps disproving evolution:
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior. While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult and well nigh impossible because with only one individual in an entire species having the mutation it would not spread and most likely die unless it had a very large selective advantage.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival or for adaptation.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body. It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution). For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work. This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
5. Paleontology has shown that the problems with fossils are even greater than in Darwin's time. In the Cambrian Explosion we are finding more species suddenly occurring making the disproof of evolution greater. We also in spite of having 100 times more fossils that in Darwin's time have the same vast gaps between major classifications of species and man's descent from apes has been discredited and the time of the supposed branching between man and ape keeps getting pushed back further and further.
So as you can see, your statement is absolutely wrong.

[Dan Day]

Problem is that science keeps disproving evolution:

[List of 5 things snipped]

So as you can see, your statement is absolutely wrong.

I don't think that gore3000 is interested in hearing the many errors in his list (and trying to correct every false claim he makes in all of his posts would be more than a full time job), so to save time I'll just mention that there are a ton of things very wrong each of with his points here, and if any lurkers (no, not the usual creationist crowd) are curious to hear the flaws, send me a FreepMail and I'll detail them for you.

I can't resist giving one quick taste, though...

We also in spite of having 100 times more fossils that in Darwin's time have the same vast gaps between major classifications of species

"Same vast gaps between major classifications", eh?

In Darwin's time there was indeed a "vast gap" in the fossil record between, say, whales and horses. Both are mammals and, by the theory of evolution, should have a common ancestor, but there were no fossils which showed this.

According to gore3000, we have the "same vast gaps" today. So then how does he explain the fact that the "vast gap" is today filled with *this* beautifully gradual sequence of transitional fossils??

Hyopsodus to whales:

• Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead of nails.
• Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
• Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
• Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
• Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
• Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
• Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
• Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on B. isis.)
• Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
• Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils. They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene), an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
• Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to modern whales.

In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:

1. Toothed whales:
   • Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
   • Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
   • Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical skulls.
2. Baleen (toothless) whales:
   • Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but still had all its teeth. Later,
   • Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
   • Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.

And then then there's an equally impressive chain of transitional fossils between Hyopsodus and horses.

"Same vast gaps"? Don't make me laugh.

The real kicker is that such chains of transitional fossils were predicted by evolutionary theory (even before they were found), but *have no good explanation* under creatoinist dogma -- which is why Gore3000 has to simply (and falsely) declare that they don't exist, as he did above.

[Dan Day]

Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior

Document this slur, or retract it. I insist.

Before you play "the race card", be sure you know what you're talking about.

In all of Darwin's writings which I have read, he took great pains to state that he considered all living races of man to be equal intellectually and spiritually. And that's especially admirable given the era in which he lived and the "conventional wisdom" on race at the time.