Replies

An example of the kind of evidence I'd consider as "wow that's strong evidence" would be, for example, two things: if we found almost nearly complete skeletons all the way connecting the the man to the ring-tailed lemur and the Charlie Darwin with a skeleton at least every 10 generations -- or with no gap more different then is common in 10 successive generations.

Well, I'd have to agree with you that that'd be mighty strong evidence indeed--that'd be about a million nearly complete skeletons. If that's the kind of evidence you're waiting for, I think you might as well resign yourself to never being convinced.

I'm not sure what a half-dog or half-fish is. Help me out here -- what's a half-dog and a half-fish?

I was referring to what you said back in #912: "But the sort of 'yet undiscovered intermediate fossils' which I was talking about are the sort that get from dog to horse, and from fish to dog." A half-fish, half-dog would be the hypthetical creature intermediate between fish and dog.

Well, in science, if I don't find the evidence convincing then it's okay to be unconvinced. It's not like someone's religion or anything :-)

As a matter of fact, when a scientist buys into an idea without actually finding convincing supporting evidence, it's a bad thing, right?

Besides, I don't see why we won't eventually find more fossils, filling in the gaps, for example if every 10 generations would be a million fossils, then that means that there was about 10M generations -- and there must have been several hundred members to any given population each most of each stage, so that's just a lot of bones -- it makes sense that we'll keep finding more.

But how is the current state of things? so I guess you're saying that a fossil every 10 generations hasn't yet been found, but what are the state of things? every 100 generations? thousands? ten-thousand generations between fossils? Shaky?

I think you've abandoned the idea (if you ever held it) that there was ever such a thing as a half-dog, half-fish.

Now that I know that you meant "intermediate species between the dog and the fish", I can answer your question.

I have not yet found any evidence that any dog is related to any fish.

I did finish reading section 1 (of about 6) of the "29+ evidences" on T.O. and still haven't found any evidence -- except that lots of people say it's true -- but as a scientist (hobby or otherwise) another's assurance of a proof isn't the same as the proof itself, so it is valid for me to seek the actual proof.

Do you think I ought to keep reading "29+" on T.O., or is what I'll find still not going to do much for me?

Thanks,

-Jesse