[DaveyB]

..it shows an incredible ignorance of what would be expected from the fossil record.

Oh! What was Darwin expecting?

The peppered moth studies are valid science.

Let's see we started with moths - we ended up with moths - yep that does it evolution all right!

Or of course it might just be that genes that were present to begin with, expressed themselves.

Nebraska man is a dramatic example how if you presume evolution you find evidence to support your framework - but then you might just be being played for the fool.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Oh! What was Darwin expecting?"

What has been found.

" Let's see we started with moths - we ended up with moths - yep that does it evolution all right!"

It was a demonstration of natural selection, not speciation. Nobody every claimed it was anything more than that.

" Or of course it might just be that genes that were present to begin with, expressed themselves."

Obviously you don't know anything about the study. It was a demonstration that two different color variations had differential success depending on the bark coloration. With a dark bark, the light colored moth decreased in number. With a light bark, the dark moth decreased. Nobody ever said it was a demonstration of mutation. You are attacking a strawman.

"Nebraska man is a dramatic example how if you presume evolution you find evidence to support your framework - but then you might just be being played for the fool."

It was never accepted by science and was discarded with a few years. It's a great example of how peer review works. It's a blip on the scientific landscape, yet creationists have latched on to it as some sort of sacred component of evolutionary theory.

[Stultis]

Nebraska man is a dramatic example how if you presume evolution you find evidence to support your framework - but then you might just be being played for the fool.

The "man" part of "Nebraska Man" stems entirely from a popular article, and an accompanying drawing, written by an overly enthusiastic British scientist who never examined the actual fossil. The original researchers in America dismissed the British drawing and reconstruction as "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

The only proposal the American scientists ever put forward was that the tooth appeared to be that of an APE (not a "man") which maybe possessed a few incipient human affinities, although the fossil was far too worn to be definitive about such details.

You may be looking at this all wrong. The alleged "discovery" that Hesperopithecus dawsonii was "really" only a pig's tooth might be the nefarious evolution conspiracy cover up; and you've fallen for it! You see an ape in North America would really be evidence AGAINST evolution and for creationism, since apes supposedly evolved in Africa long after the continents separated. Apes should have never been here on the evolutionary scheme!