Replies

They sure do look vaguely similar, don't they? And there is no doubt in my mind that individual forms adapt and change over time. Whether these pen and ink drawings provide us with an example of that I would not dare to guess, especially given that they themselves are merely imaginative extrapolation based on what were doubtless incomplete remains.

Vaguely? A paleontologist going over the skeletons would enumerate point-for-point morphological similarities essentially all over the body. By the way, the incomplete parts of the skeletons are marked in dotted lines. There aren't that many. You're looking for dodges everywhere. Do you realize how obvious it is? When you ask for evidence of transitional forms, what do you think you're asking for?

Evolution as an explanation of life on earth "sola scriptura" just does not seem to me to be as much rational science as a dogma seeking to find ways to trumpet the potential non-existence of God.

I read things like this and realize the writer doesn't care about science but is (needlessly in my view) defending his religion against some vicious undermining attack from Godless Science. God is not the business of science.

I still vote for intelligent design and adaptive change over time.

The nature and history of the universe is not subject to your vote.

I said: "there is no doubt in my mind that individual forms adapt and change over time"

I stipulate to the existance of the fossil record. It's the SciDogma that fossils are sufficient proof of the theory of evolution and anyone who points out that the fossil record says nothing about the creation of the basic forms, only how they changed, is deluded-out-of-the-box. Should they also profess to a religious belief, they are automatically relegated to the ranks of creationists, although I have twice stated I am not. Please stop attacking me where we agree and explain how Stegasaurus A,B, and C speaks to the question about the gills, feathers, and kidneys.

In no way does the fossil record explain how life began, how individual cells came together to form vital organs, why a gill or a lung or a wing would be a positive survival trait before it was functional, and not a detriment to survival.

You said: "The nature and history of the universe is not subject to your vote."

Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!-- further, the evolutionary model he proposes "Punctuated Equilibrium" requires the unexplained, the unobserved, and the unrecorded(in the fossil record) to work. There are several far brighter mathmatical types on these posts as well who offer fascinating reads on probability and survivability of incomplete systems.

One of the hallmarks of sucessful scientific discovery has always been an open mind and the refusal to accept the status quo

Give it a whirl, cast off your preconceptions, question your beliefs.