Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
And no, it does not paint "a fully consistent picture to what vincentblackshadow said"
What VBS said was "There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien".
The reality is that it is a subject of dispute, in other words There is no consensus among the experts concerning the evolutionary relationship among the various australopithecines, or between the australopithecines and Homo habilis, which is considered by many to be the earliest species of the genus Homo.
Evolution is all speculation. And, speculation is NOT a theory. Therefore, evolution is NOT a theory.
It's only logical.
There is a very visible progression. It is not a certifiable progression of ancestor to descendant, but it shows the most advanced primates known for each age becoming increasingly humanlike until they are human. You really, really, really have to strap on blinders not to see what the fossil record is showing you here.
Good picture as an analogy of a broken "theory" of evolution.
Yes, VESTIGIAL FEATURES do indeed provide evidence of evolution "either way", because if they linger from a common ancestor, they indicate the link to that common ancestor, and if they have been "de-selected" as you say, they also provide evidence for evolution because they leave traces of their passing, such as the fact that birds do not have teeth, but still have "broken" genes to produce teeth (which can and have been chemically triggered to produce chicks with reptile-like teeth). Even though birds have lost the teeth of their reptile ancestors, they retain clear evidence that they *did* have teeth in a distant ancestor. emphasis mine
Concerning the emphasis, I think your readers should know this:
"Cells were transplanted from mice into the chicken embryos..." source
Here's a critique of the reaserch for anyone interested.
Something the MP's don't like to discuss...
Suicide rates are higher among nations with higer rates of atheism.
Birth rates are lower among atheists.
So. Looks like there might be something to evolution afterall. The atheists and homosexuals will extinct without evangelizing to spread their beliefs. (And they think we're the ignorant ones?)
MSM and public education - the only means of survival for atheism.
And now some want to inject a supernatural who is not only capable of tweeking DNA on a regular basis but does so on a whim whenever he/she/it wants a new species to play with, into science. Go figure.
We can? Really?
Do we know the initial conditions where pre-life started? No. Do we know where pre-life started? No. We know the conditions that may have existed where pre-life started but there may have been many other necessary conditions we know nothing about. This is why we spend time trying to determine those conditions - because we are unsure.
Do we know the chemical composition of the initial pre-life? No. We know the composition of current life, we know about RNA and DNA, but are these the only combinations of chemicals that self-replicate? Are these the only structures that life could possibly start with? Are there any other combinations that could begin proto-life? We do not know. That is why abiogenesis is being studied, to learn how things got started.
Do we know what if any selection process was applied to the original pre-life? No. Based on current observations, we can suppose that selection can be applied to any proto-life that suffers replication errors but is this selection even necessary at that early a point? We do not know. This is why the study of abiogenesis is going on, to learn.
We haven't replicated life in the laboratory because there are an almost infinite number of possible combinations of elements and conditions, and we have barely begun our version of the selection process.
Can we recreate any condition there ever was? Doubtful. Even if we could, how many billions of conditions are there for us to iterate through?
Your claim that we can do anything we want in the lab but have been unable to recreate life sounds very much like the meanderings of a person with very little knowledge of the world around him. Before you go claiming knowledge of what we can and what we can not do in research, spend a little time doing what science does and in fact is all about, learn something.
From a modern chimp??????!!!!!!
What? What the heck are you ranting about?
"Blind ranting as it may be...
"By the way, a lot of evos seem to have a case of logorrhea but no one has yet been able to explain away the Cambrian explosion, the irreducibly complex systems, etc., etc.
Every ICS so far proposed by IDists has been soundly debunked. The Cambrian Explosion is an explosion only when considered in Geological time, it covered ~40 million years. In fact the range of 'body' styles found in the Cambrian contains less variation on average than the original organism in a phylum does to extant members. There are some exceptions to this but over all the phyla are not as radically diverse as you would like them to be. Many can simply be considered variations on others. For example, we humans can be considered to differ more from the 'worm' that started the Chordata than that worm is to the worm that started Hemichordata.
Of course this all depends on how the divisions between the ~36 Phyla are determined. It is possible to reduce the ~36 down to 9 major Phyla, not all of which started in the Cambrian.
Explosion? Only when compared to other radiations, hardly instantaneous.
I'll assume your etc. etc. is as empty as the rest of your points.
You must have a very tiny perspective if you think the 'holes' in the ToE are giant.
Why?
Because the ToE is not bunk.
It would be quite a surprise to find external flesh fossilized at all. We have a very few skin fossils (imprints) of that age, none of which (if memory serves) have associated fossil flesh.
I suspect if wrong I will be soundly corrected.
Lack of a fossil doesn't mean something was not there. A fossil can *prove* that something existed but after all we hear about how difficult it is for something to be fossilized that it's remarkable that there are any fossils at all, you can't prove that something didn't exist because of a lack of a fossil. What do you mean by *modern*? Something that is alive today? If that's the case, a google search on *living fossils* and *bat fossils* will provide some links to discuss this.
Sheesh! Did ya havta say it that way?
I'll get started on the washroom right away...
Well my daughter once asked my wife if she remembered dinosaurs, I responded with a hearty 'Yes'. I'm two years younger than my wife.
Seriously, I'm 50.
Not so seriously I feel 80.
By the way, most of us gave up on logging the fallacies used, the logs get to be huge.
. . . and you have no basic understanding of the word RUDE!
I do happen to understand the meaning of the word "vestigial".
You have no idea how educated I may or may not be.
I do not need YOU to provide me with an education.
Do you always so severely abuse the people with which you converse? If you do, I would suggest that you not venture out of doors and continue to interact behind the privacy of your keyboard where you will be safer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.