>> Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish. After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish. All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface. <<
The Coelacanth is an example of a fish which has developped certain features which would make the transition from water to land possible. It was not asserted that the Coelacanth was the actual ancestor. In fact, there are many fish that exhibit certain stages in the progression from water to land, but which are still not asserted to be ancestors of amphibians: mudskippers, catfish, etc. The reason the coelacanth is famous was simply because of its amazing discovery. For whatever reason, in the 200 million years since it evolved, the Coelacanth has found the deep waters more hospitable. The presence of features which no longer serve their original purpose is not an embarassment to evolutionary theory at all. Humans are found with many such features, such as unused Caeci in the colon, wisdom teeth, a coccyx, etc.
I believed that God used evolution as the means by which He created the Earth. Why else would he create a deep-water fish with an anatomy plainly better suited for shallow water?
Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics. And besides, it has modern flight feathers and hollow bones, evidence of a true bird.
>> Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics.<<
Yes, they are called "vestigial traits." And the fact that they still emerge is a strong argument for evolution.
Piltdown man was a hoax. Scientists who are firm believers in evolution figured out the hoax.
Ramapithecus did turn out to be not an ancestor of man, but did establish that there were was diversity in the ape-man tree.
It is still held that humans descended from the Australopithecus genus. I'm not sure what you mean to say when you assert that Australopithecus turned out to be an exinct ape. That is an ape was taken for granted when the Austrolopithecus species was given a distinct genus, instead of being made a species of genus Homo. And of course it's extinct!
>>Later skeletons of homo habilus discovered would reveal though that it was not humanlike at all. <<
That's a fantastic and subjective claim. It certainly was far more like a human that it is like any living ape.
>>And any evidence of H. habilus that would suggest it is human<<
Human, as opposed to, what? An extinct ape-man?
>> Homo erectus, known as "Java Man" and "Peking Man", discovered by Eugene Bubois, was considered a link. <<
Homo Erecti have been found by several people. Java Man and Peking Man refer to two separate discoveries of separate skeletons.
>>But, Dubois exaggerated the skull, <<
???
>>and failed to report that he found a complete human skeleton in the same strata. <<
Suggesting what? That H. Sapiens and H. Erecti lived within the same couple hundred-thousands years of each other? Of course they did.
>> Neanderthal Man was characterized by heavy brows, sloping foreheads, powerful physiques, and larger brains than humans of today. But closer examinations of this "link" show that he stood upright with the posture, gait, and intelligence of a modern person.<<
Yes, Neanderthal Man was quickly classified as H. Sapiens. There were initially a few references to H. Sapiens Neanderthalis, suggesting a subspecies, but it was argued sucessfully that there was no need to make a distinction, even though modern man may have evolved slightly since Neanderthal Man. (He *was* found in France, after all.)
>>And some tools that have been unearthed reveal that they may have been smarter than humans of today. <<
What, a Pentium VI? A Honda that gets 85 MPG?
>>That sounds like a regression, and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse.<<
Well, that just goes to show how ignorant you are then, doesn't it? Darwin quickly scrapped the term "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." In his second book, he called it "sexual selection." It's just that his first book was the one that became so famous, so its title stuck. Being more intelligent is your value; evolution has no values.
Plainly, brightly colored cardinals are easier for predators to spot, but to a female cardinal, the male's brightness signifies that he is virile, capable of defending himself, and, well, bodacious. So cardinals bearing those traits get laid more often. (Moderator, we're talking about birds.)
I'm not buying entirely the premise that there were more intelligent subspecies of man which disappeared, but ask yourself who reproduces more, physicists or professional athletes?
>>Bats, who supposedly evolved from rodents similar to shrews, would be a great example for evolution. But, the complexity would render the rodent unable to use his paws for running or grasping, and it would not be able to walk, hold its food, or fly. In fact, it would be incredibly vulnerable, and it would not have lived long enough to produce offspring. Kind of goes against "Survival of the fittest" doesn't it?<<
Umm, bats can use their paws for grasping. The exaggerated size of their wings make running difficult, but intermediately-sized wings can still help glide. Look at flying squirrels, or even some species of toe-gliding lizards!
The feather was a quandry for evolutionary biologists, since they are too complex to evolve with a short-term mutation, and primitive feathers are useless for flight. Then it was found that ancient bird-reptiles were warm-blooded and had "pin" feathers only. Eureka! Feathers were evolved first for body heat conservation. Only after bird-reptiles took to flight did nature find that certain shaped feathers functionned as micropropellers.
Other examples of intermediate functions include Bones developping as Calcium resvoirs. This is most excellent, because by their very nature, we can examine the evolution of bones quite easily. From skin secretions, to neural sheaths, to protective coverings, to support structures, to locomotion, the evolution of bones is plainly in the fossil record. So sequential and self evident that no 7-day creationists would even think to ask why would bones evolve underwater.
Stinky ol' pin feathers gettin' wet sure smell bad, but when you've got warm blood, who cares....
[We'll find these warm-blooded UN-FEATHERED fossils that died out in great numbers, because they could NOT keep warm enough yet, soon.
Well, that just goes to show how ignorant you are then, doesn't it? Darwin quickly scrapped the term "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." In his second book …