[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You are foaming at the mouth about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you. The theory of evolution applies equally well if a deity created the first life. Many who call themselves Christians (I believe that you disagree with their right to that title) disagree with you, and accept the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution following initial life that they believe was created by God.

Not really good enough, Thatcherite.

If you are willing to admit that the Law of Biogenesis demands the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell, then there's really no reason to prefer Random Evolution thereafter as opposed to the Intelligent Design of every successive living cell (whether singular, or in organizational combination -- i.e., multicellular organisms or "plants and animals").

Creationists are certainly willing to admit that all of these fossil-recorded species did exist, in antiquity. However, as I said -- the point is, once you're willing to admit the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell, there remains no inherent reason to favor the notion of Random Evolution over the possibility of Intelligent Design for every Living Species thereafter.

I am reminded of an old exchange between my friend "the_doc" and the Evolutionist "VadeRetro", in which the Doc challenged Vade to present any fossil evidence whatsoever for the Evolution of the Bat (which appears fully-formed in the fossil record, wings and sonar and all, with no apparent precursors)... and Vade responded by triumphally posting some photographed fossils of an antediluvian Bird...

Great fun was had by all. Vade only managed to FUBAR the entire Phylogenetic Column by way of his response (but I don't think he'll soon again forget that Mammalia is an entirely different Class of Phylum Chordata than that of Avia!!)

These ancient, now-extinct species did exist? Yes. The Fossil Record proves as much.

They evolved, one-to-another? Ah, that's another question entirely.

If you are willing to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer directly-created the First Living Cell... then why not all of them?

[Havoc]

Fantastic point. If one gives up the argument of abiogenisis, one has folded in the poker game over whether there is a viable argument against God. If one cannot argue against God, then what we're reduced to is determining whether God is truthful, something science isn't entirely in a position to do on the one hand; but, which it is capable of doing in some instances. One doesn't need to be God in order to determine whether God is levelling with us.

[VadeRetro]

Your strange quote of no-one in particular looks like somebody's wish-dream. Possibly I misread somebody's demand for a particular broomstick. (One targeted at a known gap, as if one gap anywhere makes all the evidence we do have go away.) However, I don't recall the incident. I do happen to recall that the earliest (Eocene) bat does have a remarkably long tail. This is not a feature of modern bats, but it (along with the rest of the clues) does point to an arboreal insectivore heritage.

As this site notes, for a tiny, light-boned forest animal to have a spotty record of preservation is no shock.

If you are willing to admit the possibility that an Intelligent Designer directly-created the First Living Cell... then why not all of them?

Because of all the evidence for common descent. And, no "common design" does not cover all of it equally well. I call your attention especially to the sections on redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses under Part 4. Of course, reading and absorbing that might interfere with the 20-second response latency preferred by Holy Warriors on these threads.

[Thatcherite]

If you are willing to admit that the Law of Biogenesis demands the Intelligent Design of the First Living Cell

That's your incomprehending contention. Not my admission at all. I was saying that even if one does accept it then it has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. The evidence (absolutely overwhelmingly cross-confirming across numerous scientific disciplines) that evolution is true stands or falls completely separately from the creation of first life. It is also competely separate from your cluelessness about Pasteur's work.

[the_doc]

An even bigger problem for evolutionary theory is the evolutionary presupposition that bats could have started off as rats which developed progressively longer and longer "thumb bones" on their front feet over umpteen generations, which would then become support structures for fleshy wing material, which would surely enable the former-rat-now-a-bat creature to fly.

The problem? The transitional stage of a foot becoming a wing is neither useful as a foot nor useful as a wing. According to evolutionary presuppositions, the transition stage dooms the transition. (Nature selects against the transition stage for the obvious reason that the mutant rat would not survive long enough to produce a filial generation, much less a zillion generations of progeny of neither-rats-nor-bats.)

In short, the transition state is a thermodynamic wall.

Alas, I must now go back into stubborn retirement. I don't have time for much on FR these days.