# Planet Earth

57 replies to this topic

### #21 john_many_jars

john_many_jars

Newcomer

• Member
• 7 posts
• Age: 31
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• champaign il

Posted 30 June 2005 - 08:11 AM

You are looking at situations as they exist, and then calculating the odds of getting there, using that reasoning the answer will always be 1:<insert big number> against, for any such situation.Ã‚Â  (note to self - I must retrieve my calculations on an individual existing to demonstrate this point).

Consider a simpler example, what are the odds of being dealt 4 aces straight up in stud poker? Are the odds any different than being dealt a 2(spades), 6(diamonds), jack(clubs), 9(clubs), 8(spades)?Ã‚Â  Now should you substitute the earth for the 4 aces, or should it be the other hand?
The Debatinator what about cloudy or moonless nights?Ã‚Â

You know, someone, eventually, wins a lottery. That someone is rarely you and never I (I don't play lotteries--it's a tax on those who don't understand math). But, no matter who wins, someone does.

The Drake equation is used to determine the odds of intelligent life arising. According to even the most conservative estimates of the constants in the Drake equation indicate that intelligent life should appear somewhere else in the universe. It also indicates that the odds of any given star giving rise to life is ludicrously low. The fact that we haven't found life anywhere else but here indicates that the Drake equation is a good approximation, if not correct.

Unfathomable events happen all the time. A gentleman from Virginia by the name of Roy Sullivan has been struck by lightning 7 times. The odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are roughly 1 in 10,000. The odds of getting struck by lightning 7 times in your lifetime, are roughly 1 in 10,000^7 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Now this is back-of-envelope calculating, so this is give or take some zeros, but not many.

You and I would say that the odds of getting struck seven times is more ludicrously unlikely than anything else. Yet it happened. Did God decide to continually torture a poor US park ranger? Or do things happen that, odds are, shouldn't?

You tell me.

Posts deleted: two posts were deleted because of attitudes projected and subject matter that we do not promote from either side about evolution. Evolution being promoted as something God did, makes evolution cross the line of becoming a religion, which starts another arguement which is a waste of time. I don't mind it mentioned, or even talked about. But when it starts getting compared to God's word, and how God used it, etc.... I consider that preaching. Here's where the rule is.
http://www.evolution...hp?showtopic=60

### #22 John Paul

John Paul

Member

• Banned
• 241 posts
• Age: 44
• Muslim
• Creationist
• Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 09:58 AM

JMJ:
If you have a problem with evolution--ie that small changes between generations do not agglomerate into large changes, then you have a hefty burden to refute.

How hefty can it be when that premise has yet to be substantiated?

What can be changed in a population of single-celled organisms that could eventually lead to the "evolution" of boned vertebrates?

"Evolution" per se isn't being debated. The crux of the debate stems from people pushing evolution #6 for personal reasons, as opposed to scientific evidentiary reasons:

The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blind watchmakerÃ¢â‚¬Â thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

### #23 chance

chance

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 2,029 posts
• Age: 51
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 01:44 PM

You know, someone, eventually, wins a lottery.  That someone is rarely you and never I (I don't play lotteries--it's a tax on those who don't understand math).  But, no matter who wins, someone does.

The Drake equation is used to determine the odds of intelligent life arising.  According to even the most conservative estimates of the constants in the Drake equation indicate that intelligent life should appear somewhere else in the universe.  It also indicates that the odds of any given star giving rise to life is ludicrously low.  The fact that we haven't found life anywhere else but here indicates that the Drake equation is  a good approximation, if not correct.

Agreed.

Unfathomable events happen all the time.  A gentleman from Virginia by the name of Roy Sullivan has been struck by lightning 7 times.  The odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are roughly 1 in 10,000.  The odds of getting struck by lightning 7 times in your lifetime, are roughly 1 in  10,000^7 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Now this is back-of-envelope calculating, so this is give or take some zeros, but not many.

You and I would say that the odds of getting struck seven times is more ludicrously unlikely than anything else.  Yet it happened.  Did God decide to continually torture a poor US park ranger?  Or do things happen that, odds are, shouldn't?

You tell me.

What we are talking about here is an improbable sequence of events, like being dealt 4 aces straight up. To explain rephrase the question thus Ã¢â‚¬â€œ What are the odds of Never being dealt 4 aces if one plays continuously?

What is more improbable coincidences or no coincidences?

### #24 chance

chance

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 2,029 posts
• Age: 51
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 01:49 PM

In the end, neither can be known and the philosophers can debate this forever.  Are they the same?

I claim they are.  This is a substantial area for debate.  Unlike every post I have seen so far in the forum.

You are confusing philosophy with science, and seeing them overlap with your world view, if you wish to debate a philosophic subject that fine, just state such in your post.

### #25 ninhursag

ninhursag

Junior Member

• Member
• 29 posts
• Interests:Reasons. Why do people live/think/believe like they do?
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Estonia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:39 PM

I also think a moon to light the night is a nice touch.

You know, what would be a really nice touch? If the smaller globular star clusters were suitable for habitable solar system and the Sun would be on the outskirts of one that was just above (or below, if you wish) the galaxy and the Earth's orbit were just so - then we would have a season where each night we would see a galaxy rising above the horizon... Can you imagine the sight? A bright burning galaxy shining from behind the veils of dark matter... It would probably cover at least a quarter of the sky ... Now, a moon is certainly nice, but it's not the best we could have .

Probabilities... probabilities are evil. Not in themselves, but in their usage, in them being somewhat incomprehensible to humans. Take the often-used coin problem: if you have thrown the coin nine times and it has been heads each time, which is more likely to come up in the next throw? Come on, everybody knows how difficult it is to get the same result with the coin each time (one would assume, more of common sense than of having tried to throw a coin a few hundred times in a row). Intuitively, the answer would seem to be clear. But in reality, one would have to remember that coins don't have memories and thus are not much influenced by the previous events.

Because of the difficulties in using improbability to prove impossibility it's improbable the improbability argument could ever be one of the most effective weapons in the creationist arsenal .

### #26 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

Member

• Veteran Member
• 123 posts
• Age: 15
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Amity, Oregon

Posted 30 June 2005 - 11:23 PM

"The evidence that humans descended from other primates comes from the fossil record, not from the theory of evolution."

You see evidence in the fossil record because of a presupposed belief. If someone with a different presupposed belief, IE, me, were to look at the fossil record, I would come up with a completely different conclusion. Such as that birds would be buried on top in a flood because of hollow bones. Then humans are the smartest and probably drowned last, so you don't get many human skeletons fossilized.

"SMALL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARENT(S) AND OFFSPRING AGGLOMERATE, NOT DIMINISH OR CANCEL, OVER TIME. "

Yes, and I will restate what John has been trying to say all along. What amount of change or what change period could possibly bring a unicellular organism to be a vertebret and boned multicellular thinking organism? It seems to me that there must be some magic to the theory of evolution, because it seems to be based on the claim that changes or rejumbling of ALREADY PRESENT GENES will cause advancement.

### #27 chance

chance

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 2,029 posts
• Age: 51
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 03 July 2005 - 06:50 PM

You see evidence in the fossil record because of a presupposed belief. If someone with a different presupposed belief, IE, me, were to look at the fossil record, I would come up with a completely different conclusion. Such as that birds would be buried on top in a flood because of hollow bones. Then humans are the smartest and probably drowned last, so you don't get many human skeletons fossilized.

If this was a consistent observation it would falsify evolution and go a long way to substantiating creation. But it is not what is found in the fossil record, it is not about a way a of looking at things or pre supposed beliefs, it (the theory) must always be a way to explain the evidence.

### #28 John Paul

John Paul

Member

• Banned
• 241 posts
• Age: 44
• Muslim
• Creationist
• Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:54 AM

Any alleged "out-of-place" fossils could only possibly falsify any specific history of life. The theory of evolution can not be falsified by out-of-place fossils.

And as I mentioned in another thread we do have artifacts found in strata dated over 25 million years via standard dating methods. That puts humans, unless some other organism used a mortor & pestle, on Earth over 25 mya.

### #29 chance

chance

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 2,029 posts
• Age: 51
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 04 July 2005 - 01:44 PM

Any alleged "out-of-place" fossils could only possibly falsify any specific history of life. The theory of evolution can not be falsified by out-of-place fossils.

I disagree, if one were to find no order in the fossil record or specifically Dinosaurs in the Devonian, or Humans in the Triassic (out of place) evolution could not Possibly account for their appearance and evolution (small changes over time) would be falsified.

P.S. What do you mean by Ã¢â‚¬Å“any specific history of lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â?

And as I mentioned in another thread we do have artifacts found in strata dated over 25 million years via standard dating methods. That puts humans, unless some other organism used a mortor & pestle, on Earth over 25 mya.

Well this sounds interesting can you point to the thread you mentioned please, because 25mya puts the earth in the Oligocene epoch (Tertiary period) and there were certainly no HumanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s.

### #30 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
• Guests

Posted 04 July 2005 - 01:46 PM

Well this sounds interesting can you point to the thread you mentioned please,

I must have missed that one too.

### #31 John Paul

John Paul

Member

• Banned
• 241 posts
• Age: 44
• Muslim
• Creationist
• Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 05 July 2005 - 05:10 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
Any alleged "out-of-place" fossils could only possibly falsify any specific history of life. The theory of evolution can not be falsified by out-of-place fossils.

chance:
I disagree, if one were to find no order in the fossil record or specifically Dinosaurs in the Devonian, or Humans in the Triassic (out of place) evolution could not Possibly account for their appearance and evolution (small changes over time) would be falsified.

You can disagree all you want but it is a fact that the ToE cannot be falsified by the FR. The ToE does NOT state what organisms evolved from what.

chance:
P.S. What do you mean by Ã¢â‚¬Å“any specific history of lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â?

The history of life is someone's version of what evolved from what & when.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
And as I mentioned in another thread we do have artifacts found in strata dated over 25 million years via standard dating methods. That puts humans, unless some other organism used a mortor & pestle, on Earth over 25 mya.

chance:
Well this sounds interesting can you point to the thread you mentioned please, because 25mya puts the earth in the Oligocene epoch (Tertiary period) and there were certainly no HumanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s.

I mentioned it the same way I just did- here is the ref:

Sinclair, WJ (1908) Univ. Of California Publications in American Archaeology and Etnology 7(2): 107- 131

The mortar & pestle were found in a mine under Table Mountain in Tuolumme County, CA. They were penetrating Tertiary deposits.

### #32 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
• Guests

Posted 05 July 2005 - 07:39 AM

Sinclair, WJ (1908) Univ. Of California Publications in American Archaeology and Etnology 7(2): 107- 131

The mortar & pestle were found in a mine under Table Mountain in Tuolumme County, CA. They were penetrating Tertiary deposits.

"The findings of Dr. Whitney and Dr. Becker, including the artifacts found in the Montezuma Tunnels, were studied by Sinclair (1908) and found to lack any convincing evidence for being of Tertiary age. He found serious problems of provenance and other incongruities that argue against a Tertiary age for them as have other investigators, i.e. Holmes (1899)."
http://www.talkorigi...mom/mortar.html

### #33 John Paul

John Paul

Member

• Banned
• 241 posts
• Age: 44
• Muslim
• Creationist
• Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:35 AM

"The findings of Dr. Whitney and Dr. Becker, including the artifacts found in the Montezuma Tunnels, were studied by Sinclair (1908) and found to lack any convincing evidence for being of Tertiary age. He found serious problems of provenance and other incongruities that argue against a Tertiary age for them as have other investigators, i.e. Holmes (1899)."
http://www.talkorigi...mom/mortar.html

talkorigins isn't a credible source and it should be noted that Holmes & Sinclair could only raise vague suspicion that the objects in question had been only recently introduced to the mine. It should also be noted that the person making the claim had nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose. Ya see when artifacts are found at a mine or coinstruction site, work stops so that an investigation can take place.

### #34 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
• Guests

Posted 05 July 2005 - 08:50 AM

talkorigins isn't a credible source

Talkorigins isn't the source. See the list of references at the bottom of that page.

It should also be noted that the person making the claim had nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose. Ya see when artifacts are found at a mine or coinstruction site, work stops so that an investigation can take place.

You've got to be kidding. If you really think that gold mining activities during the 1880's would have been interrupted for the sake of a few grinding stones or arrowheads, then you might want to dig a little deeper into California history.

### #35 chance

chance

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 2,029 posts
• Age: 51
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 05 July 2005 - 01:52 PM

(John Paul @ Jul 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
Any alleged "out-of-place" fossils could only possibly falsify any specific history of life. The theory of evolution can not be falsified by out-of-place fossils.

chance:
I disagree, if one were to find no order in the fossil record or specifically Dinosaurs in the Devonian, or Humans in the Triassic (out of place) evolution could not Possibly account for their appearance and evolution (small changes over time) would be falsified.

You can disagree all you want but it is a fact that the ToE cannot be falsified by the FR. The ToE does NOT state what organisms evolved from what.

A fact! I fear not. Explain how evolution would not be falsified by finding out of place fossils as I previous defined them (Dinosaurs in the Devonian or Human in the Jurassic). Evolution cannot predict this event, the evidence is against evolution thus itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s falsified. Just saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fact wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t cut it, explain why.

chance:
P.S. What do you mean by Ã¢â‚¬Å“any specific history of lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â?

The history of life is someone's version of what evolved from what & when.

Are you saying thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what an interpretation of the fossil record is? Just someoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opinion and that it?

(John Paul @ Jul 5 2005, 04:54 AM)
And as I mentioned in another thread we do have artifacts found in strata dated over 25 million years via standard dating methods. That puts humans, unless some other organism used a mortor & pestle, on Earth over 25 mya.

chance:
Well this sounds interesting can you point to the thread you mentioned please, because 25mya puts the earth in the Oligocene epoch (Tertiary period) and there were certainly no HumanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s.

I mentioned it the same way I just did- here is the ref:

Sinclair, WJ (1908) Univ. Of California Publications in American Archaeology and Etnology 7(2): 107- 131

The mortar & pestle were found in a mine under Table Mountain in Tuolumme County, CA. They were penetrating Tertiary deposits.

Ok, now are you saying the mortar & pestle are themselves 25my old, or that they were found in a cave that is 25my old? There is a big difference you know.

After a quick search of the talk origin site we find this http://www.talkorigi...mom/mortar.html

Some extracts

claim that artifacts found in the gold-bearing gravels of California provide convincing evidence of the existence of modern man in California around 55 million years ago. In the 1880's, they claim that gold miners found pestles, mortars, ladles, and spear points within Tertiary gravel deposits underlying volcanic rocks that cap Table Mountain within Tuolumne County, California. These finds were reported by both D. J. Whitney (1880) and Becker (1891).

Curiously, Mr. Neale fails to clearly state that the artifacts were embedded in the gold-bearing gravels

the characteristics of the artifacts and later testimony by Mr. Neale contradict his claims that the artifacts were found in place. Furthermore, given the lack of any notes or drawings documenting his claims, his affidavit is useless as evidence for the presence of artifacts within the Tertiary gravels beneath Table Mountain in Tuolumne County, California.

Have a read of the full article, then we can discuss the merits of this very flimsy evidence. Are you prepared to side on a 25my old artefact that is based on an affidavit?

### #36 John Paul

John Paul

Member

• Banned
• 241 posts
• Age: 44
• Muslim
• Creationist
• Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 06 July 2005 - 05:01 AM

chance:
A fact! I fear not. Explain how evolution would not be falsified by finding out of place fossils as I previous defined them (Dinosaurs in the Devonian or Human in the Jurassic). Evolution cannot predict this event, the evidence is against evolution thus itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s falsified. Just saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fact wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t cut it, explain why.

The ToE would not be falsified because the ToE does not say what organisms evolved into what other organisms. Scientists try to tell us that. They constructed a "tree-of-life" in an attempt to do just that. However that "tree" can be rearranged with no ill effect towards the theory.

As I said before and I thought everyone understood, is that the FR is not a good indicator of what lived at any point in Earth's history because we know that not everything that has lived & died gets fossilized.

Evolution can only predict change. Nothing else.

As for the mortar & pestle- we can discuss the reasoning behind the talkorigins diatribe if you wish...

### #37 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
• Guests

Posted 06 July 2005 - 08:41 AM

As I said before and I thought everyone understood, is that the FR is not a good indicator of what lived at any point in Earth's history because we know that not everything that has lived & died gets fossilized.

That doesn't allow creationists to dismiss the fossil record. The record is remarkably clear. Consider just a few points. Disprove any of these and you will be famous in paleontology.

Lowest layers (Pre-Cambrian). Only single cell life. Evidence of very low oxygen. Very highest layers of Precambrian show beginning of complex life - but still relatively simple.

Higher layer. Cambrian (dated circa 540 million years). Arthropods, some chordates. No bones ever, no land animals, no land plants. Find any bone - fish bone, anything, and you are famous.

Higher layers showing more complex life. Still no bones, no land plants. Begin to see plated fish, but no vertebrate. No evidence of any vertebrates. Find a vertebrate bone and you are famous.

Higher layers (Devonian - dated around 400 million years). First start to see fish vertebrate and begining simple land animals and land plants. End of the devonian shows trees but nothing like modern trees. Find evidence of a modern tree and you are famous. Trilobites are very prolific here. No land vertebrates (find one and you are famous). End of Devonian, one finds the first four limbed amphibians capable of supporting their weight.

Higher layers up. Increased complexity of land animals until the Permian extinction (dated around 220 million years). 95% of all species disappear from the fossil record at all places on earth. Trilobites end their long record (found in many many feet of rock below this).

Higher layers (Triassic, Jurassic etc). Ages of the dinosaurs. You won't find trilobites with the dinosaurs. You won't find any modern mammals with the dinosaurs. You won't find modern mammal tracks with the dinosaurs.

Higher layers (KT boundary - dated 65 million years). A layer of rock with high Irridium found across the planet (presumed to be a meteor impact). A number of species including the dinosaurs disappear from the fossil record. Find a dinosaur fossil above the KT boundary and you will be famous.

Higher layers (above KT boundary). Mammals increasing in size the further you get above the KT boundary. Find a modern sized horse bone in the lower layers and you will be famous.

Highest layers (last 10 million years) First large brain primates.

Highest layers (last 2 million years). Steady increase in brain size for a set of primates believed to be man's ancestors.

___________________

http://www.asa3.org/...rces/Wiens.html

### #38 chance

chance

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 2,029 posts
• Age: 51
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 06 July 2005 - 01:45 PM

The ToE would not be falsified because the ToE does not say what organisms evolved into what other organisms. Scientists try to tell us that. They constructed a "tree-of-life" in an attempt to do just that. However that "tree" can be rearranged with no ill effect towards the theory.

As I said before and I thought everyone understood, is that the FR is not a good indicator of what lived at any point in Earth's history because we know that not everything that has lived & died gets fossilized.

Evolution can only predict change. Nothing else.

As for the mortar & pestle- we can discuss the reasoning behind the talkorigins diatribe if you wish...

You are trying to dismiss the fossil record because you want perfection within it before youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll accept it! correct? You have unwittingly made the job of falsification easier.

explination - There is no requirement for perfection, the Ã¢â‚¬ËœpatternÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (see Aristarchus post) is more than adequate. In fact, because of this lack of exactness, disproving evolution should be even easier for you, because now you only have to find a single member from an entire series of life, a far bigger selection than individual or species. E.g a single mammal in the Devonian will do. P.S you will never find one.

### #39 John Paul

John Paul

Member

• Banned
• 241 posts
• Age: 44
• Muslim
• Creationist
• Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 08 July 2005 - 07:00 AM

chance:
You are trying to dismiss the fossil record because you want perfection within it before youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll accept it! correct? You have unwittingly made the job of falsification easier.

Far from dismissing the fossil record I accept it for what it is.

As I said a biological theory should first explain what we see in biology.

chance:
explination - There is no requirement for perfection, the Ã¢â‚¬ËœpatternÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (see Aristarchus post) is more than adequate. In fact, because of this lack of exactness, disproving evolution should be even easier for you, because now you only have to find a single member from an entire series of life, a far bigger selection than individual or species. E.g a single mammal in the Devonian will do. P.S you will never find one.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To falsify a biological theory one must do so with biological evidence. That has been done.

I repeat- there isn't anything the fossil record could produce that would falsify the ToE.

Can either chance or Aristarchus provide any evidence that demonstrates that any mutation/ selection process can lead to the range of change alleged by evolutionists to be observed in the FR?

THAT is what is required of a biological theory that makes such a claim.

### #40 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
• Guests

Posted 08 July 2005 - 10:28 AM

I repeat- there isn't anything the fossil record could produce that would falsify the ToE.

There are two issues here. The fossil record describes a history of life. Find a tiger with a T-Rex and you will have provided a death blow to our current theory regarding this history. The second issue is to find a decent theory that is consistent with this fossil record. Biologists argue that neo-Darwinian theory is fully consistent with this history of life shown in the fossil record.

I suppose you could be a Lamarckian and try to claim that the fossil record supports you. I imagine that there are various Darwin like theories that produce modification to the body structure over many generations. However, fossils out of order would provide serious harm to this class of theory. Find a dinosaur bone or a mammal bone down in the Devonian rock and you will certainly upset the current theories of the history of life, and also upset all classes of theory that use this history of life.

\Can either chance or Aristarchus provide any evidence that demonstrates that any mutation/ selection process can lead to the range of change alleged by evolutionists to be observed in the FR?

What sort of evidence do you need? The theory predicts that major changes typically occur over millions of years with very very small changes in any generation. So if one found thousands of fossils of a given line (e.g., the horse) showing large changes over millions of years (many levels of rock) and small changes over short periods of time, would that convince you? It sounds like you want something that shows millions of years of evolution, but won't allow use of the fossil record.

Are you are asking "Show me an experiment done over a short period of time (e.g., 50 years) that proves large changes are possible over millions of years."? But if I show you changes that extrapolate to large changes, you say you that's unfair. The only evidence you seem to accept is that which shows that millions of years of evolution change can be compressed into a short period. But no evolutionary biologist would argue that is possible.

We have bred dogs to be faster runners, better hunters, better at rounding up sheep, better at tracking, bigger, wider, thinner, fatter. If we can show that some of these have corresponding genetic mutations, would that be enough?

I think you believe old and new world monkeys come from the same line. So is it sufficient to show large changes in their genomes? There is lots and lots of work on that.

But personally, if you want to throw out Darwin. Fine. Just find something that explains everything in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what is there and conforms with what we know about biology.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users