Marine invertebrates, mostly.
If macroevolution were possible (hint, it isn't), you would not have to look at fossils to find it, it would be happening all the time. Take fish for instance. Amongst the tens of millions of fish we pull out of the water every year, there would be some developing legs.
I don't see how it really matters, except to the individual. Regardless of one's beliefs, it changes nothing.
If there were any such thing as evolution why wouldn't monkeys have evolved, too. Why would some things remain trees, grass, dogs, cats....
The process that explains how a 250,000 pound airliner can go hurtling through the air thousands of feet above the ground at hundreds of miles per hour is know as the Theory of Flight. I guess that isn't confirmed science, either.
[evolutionists' interpretation of the fossil record, we see life beginning at the lowest levels with complex creatures, with elaborate organs and other features-but with no known ancestors. Life does not start as predicted by evolution, with simple forms gradually changing into more-complex species.]
Evolutionist faith demands that the creature be worshiped and not the creator and has been one of the many downfalls of civilaztions through out man's shord 6000 year history.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
Billions of dead things --> buried in rock layers --> laid down by water --> all over the earth.
I'm an agnostic about anything which I can't know empirically. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the Chimpanzee is the animal with which we share the most DNA commonality. The Whale is most closely related by DNA to the Hippo. Our ability to reason is the best tool we have to try and understand what we can about our existence. Meanwhile, a shot or two of Anejo tastes best when followed by a suck on a lime. Enjoy!
Ignorant statement.
In science, theory does NOT mean hypothesis. When people say something is "just" a theory, they don't know the vocabulary of science. The theory of relativity started out as a hypothesis since none of its predictions had yet been tested. Now, having been tested in numerous ways, it is strongly believed to be correct and factual. In other words, theory IS confirmed scientific fact. Not necesarily perfect, however. It is able to make predictions that are correct. Same with quantum theory. (That is a problem with evolution. It is hard to run experiments on it.)
But scientific 'fact' is changeable pending new experiments.
I would be nice if people in the argument would get the terminology correct. The "It's just a theory" statement shows ignorance.
One last time. Theory is NOT the same as hypothesis, whichever side you are on.
I like to believe in a little bit of both theories.
This statement illustrates total ignorance of science. A dictionary explaining the difference between hypothesis, theory, and fact would show how sophomoric this statement is.
The quotes by scientists like Eldridge, Gould, and Raup have appeared in creationist literature for years. Get off your lazy butts and look up the original sources for these quotes. They are completely and totally out of context and misleading.
The article quotes information from Encyclopedia Encarta and Time magazine. Hardly scientific sources. I would fail a freshman student writing a scientific research paper citing sources like this.
This paper is a textbook example of pseudoscience. A poor understanding of paleontology, geology, and evolutionary biology combined with straw man arguments, misquotations, and secondary or tertiary source material.
Of course, this will not convince the true believers who equate young-earth creationism with Christianity.
Not hardly. Genesis describes events occurring 1000's of years ago. Fossil records not disputed indicate life millions of years ago.
for later
Dead give-away as to the mindset of the writer...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
My answer: "WRT evolution as a possible explanation for observed biological development -- NO!"
"OTOH, If you are simpleminded or self-centered enough to let your faith hang on disproving a scientific theory -- YES -- and that's your problem..."
Here's something I am trying to understand...
Why is ID not a gradualistic theory? Whether preplanned or random, I see no reason why ID should predict sudden changes in species sans intermediates. I mean, shouldn’t a young earth creationist expect lots of transitional species to have existed –not just forming large jumps– but to make small changes leading from one species to another? Isn’t this necessary to fit all those animals on the ark, so that not all those closely related species of today would have to be represented?
I've seen many evolutionist on here try to argue two things mostly:
1: Nonbelievers don't know what the definition of "Theory" is, therefore evolution happens...?
2: Gravity is a theory, so therefore, evolution MUST happen...?
People try using these vapid, strawman, arguments and they're totally ridiculous. It doesn't matter what the term "Theory" means if you're trying to convience people evolution is fact, and we witness and feel the effects of gravity daily. We do not observe evolution daily because that is impossible, and for the majority of the scientific community to argue evolution is FACT based on hypothesis and educated guesses does itself a huge disservice and turns evolution into a religious cult instead of a credible scientific theory by not admitting evolution is a belief based on the evidence at hand.
Your church (one of the spin-offs of Herbert W. Armstrong's cult) rejects many of the core doctrines of the historic Christian religion, doesn't it? For instance, you reject the Trinity doctrine believing that the Holy Spirit isn't God.
not
The article is pointless if the author doesn't undestand the words "theory," "hypothesis" and "fact." Folks, save your time and don't waste it on this article.
People with no understanding of the subject at hand shouldn't wander into that terrtory.