Replies

Ahh where to start,
-Don't need to resort to fossils, consider:

Horses and jackasses--mate one way, you get mules, mate another way, you get jennies. West Atlantic Herring gulls--mate east to west, you get viable offpring, mate west to east, you don't. Dogs and cats--mate them, and you get occasional live offpring. Chihuahuas and Great Danes--genetically, they are one species--so you should be able to mate them, and produce viable offspring, right?

What would truly impress me would be the horse and mule producing a Great Dane and PLEASE supply the link to the "mated cat and dog producing offspring" site (National Enquirer?)But this is completely feasible by your later comment on the invisible barrier that we have dreamed up that says this can't happen.

If you want to believe that your great great great grandmother x10 was a rock or some primordial soup and her hubby a bolt of lightning, have at it. IMHO the evidence points to intelligent design and not random chaos.

Nobody of consequence in biological sciences believes that's what happened to create life. That is just a gross over-simplification for elementary textbook consumption. Until you have a smoking gun in the form of a burning bush on video-tape, or eviction notices from tax-collectors from Venus, the evidence points best at non-surprising, non-miraculous explanations, the details of which we do not know, and may never know. There's an unwritten rule in science--don't bet on a miraculous intervention--it ain't never been a winning bet yet.

So what miraculous intervention do the "Somebodies of consequence in biological sciences" attribute the beginnings of life today, since they dropped the rock and lightning scenario, the "seeds came from outer space" idea that requires what could not have happened on earth to have happened on another planet and somehow made it's way across the galaxy to here.

The notion of no evidence being proof of a theory's validity should be absurd to even the most enlightened.

Oh, come now. There is a vast difference between "no evidence" and sporadically missing fossils in a vast sea of fossils that that show marked morphological continuity over monotonically increasing time in the geological record. That's like saying there is no evidence for gravity because you can't see any evidence of it operating in the space between galaxies.

If inductive reasoning over partial evidence is acceptable in astronomy and physics, it's certainly acceptable in biology.

Sporadic missing fossils? Every single transitional missing fossil is sporadic? I think you need to google sporadic to get the proper meaning of that word.

As I said in my first post I set out to prove the theory evolution true not false

Well, that's probably where you went astray then. It is just a theory, that's why we call it "The Theory of Evolution". Natural science doesn't deal in proof, just best guesses.

That's right whatever you have to claim needs no proof to be correct just a best guess, give me some evidence before you claim THIS is the truth.

You want a video tape or a tax notice for your proof, but expect me take your absolute lack of proof as evidence.

You want a video tape or a tax notice for your proof, but expect me take your absolute lack of proof as evidence.

I see. You want me to provide you with a proof that there is no such thing as proof in natural sciences, Whereas you are free as a lark to propound "scientific" theories in contradiction with current scientific findings. I'll show you mine as soon as you show me the proof that there is a natural distinction between speciation and hybredization.

I'll leave a space below for you to point out to me what must surely be the well-known proof of the theory of gravity.

?????

Sporadic missing fossils? Every single transitional missing fossil is sporadic? I think you need to google sporadic to get the proper meaning of that word.

What, pray tell, are they missing FROM? I'll tell you--a continuous record of morphological continuity embedded in monotonically increasing order in a continuous record of geological sequence. Matched nicely, one might add, in later days, by mutational distance comparisons amongst living phyla.

Like the hybridization vs. speciation scam, this one is based on pretending there is a natural meaning to man-made, artificial classification barriers. All fossils are "transitional", in that they are sporadic snapshots of a world teeming with species, only a tiny few examples of which manage the remarkable feat of dying without being broken up and incorporated into other living creatures. When times are turbulant, creatures change faster, and opportunities to fossilize are rarer--so the fossil "gaps" you're so fond of are exactly what you would expect to see in interzonal geographic layers: when times are turbulent.

So what miraculous intervention do the "Somebodies of consequence in biological sciences" attribute the beginnings of life today,

Most biologists just don't think about origins questions, but those that do, do not pin much hope on miraculous intervention by Venusians. Just painfully slow responses of increasingly stubbornly persistent pre-DNA congeries of adhering, self-sustaining entities. See Wolfram, See Woese, and see Kauffman for current best musings on the subject.

the "seeds came from outer space" idea

This is not an answer to the fundamental question of how life originates--it just puts off the question by a few billion years.