The whole "there is no evidence" thing is based on the idea of gaps in the fossil record. It's the logical equivalent of saying that having a photo albumn full of pictures that span your life isn't proof that you were once a child, because you only have snapshots of particular moments, and anything could have happened in between.

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, lol! You can only show evidence for what does exist and point out the lack of evidence for all else.

As for this video, it's really not very good at proving the point. He talks about whales, then shows fossils for dolphins. These are not the same species, though they are closely related. If you want the average gum smacking moron to change their mind about the fossil record, show the pretty chart, then show the actual fossils and where they correlate to the chart. Otherwise people will think you are trying to pull a fast one again, and it will be further "proof" in their minds that science is full of crap.

what you first all fail to understand... is that the proposed process of evolution involves gradual changes over many generations. We can agree to that correct?

So none of the so called 'Transitional Fossils' are remotely transitional.

A transitional form would be one going through the process of developing an arm / leg etc. These fossils should be plentiful considering it would take a sheerly ridiculous number of steps before the animals new form was fully developed... In otherwords.. how many generations and how many forms would it take for a arm to form in an animal which has no arms. How many millions of tries would be necessary by random mutation before it was successful.

I'm sure you can imagine the process.. considering the animal has no idea what it is trying for - the first form of an arm would be, I suppose a stump of some type... now considering this stump would serve it no actual purpose (and in the case of fish we have the peculiar situation where it randomly would need to form 4 of these in symetrical spots... all at once? or one at a time?) This stump would be a detriment.. not an improvement - and so would the tremendous number of other steps involved until this form was complete.

The key here being that every aspect of every animal and plant would need to go through this process.. and the vast majority of these changes could not occur in a beneficial manner - natural selection supposedly works because this change is an improvement.

We have no fossils which represent these transitions.. nothing that isn't fully functional. The ground should be littered with millions of these tiny changes.. in the development of eyes / limbs / and every other form. Instead we find animals which are finished products - just like IDA - well designed for their given purpose.. no works in progress.. no half-formed wings. Were these to even be demonstrated the question would still remain... if every species went through these changes for every single aspect of their development.. any fossil bed should be full of intermediates. By intermediates I mean something which is in the process of developing something.. not finished. IDA uses a thumb which we do not have to climb trees.. it is formed and completed.

One other thing to consider is that evolution's proposed mechanism is random mutation combined with natural selection.. it randomly makes changes.. the failures die out. At the heart of it the mechanism is simply random mutation. - so how many tries does a creature have to make before it randomly stumbles upon something which works? I would wager a vast number..

Thus the fossil record has a compound problem.. not only should it show transitional fossils that are in the lineage of the current form.. it should also show the millions and millions of failed attempts.. the millions of random tries toward a new limb of some kind that were rejected by natural selection.

Not only that - but the world around us should show living examples of these failed species.. because natural selection works on the flawed assumption that if something decides to start working on a new limb.. that since the new limb is a decidedly bad evolutionary change, that creature would die out. Not the case... every animal wants to survive.. and just because it has an inferior design in no way suggests they wouldn't still be around.

IDA is a lemur... a very old variety of lemur. - and no, you don't have a thumb on your foot.

I wish these scientists would have the REAL smack-downs ready!

Evolution IS up for debate! If you can bring a single shred of hard evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory, any scientist would LOVE to publish that and become instantly famous. The problem is that all the evidence fits into the theory of evolution!

And I would even agree that there is a place in the classroom to teach the gaps in the theory. Like how life first came together, what made those amino acids first begin to form? There are people working on that issue, but there is no consensus yet. And discussing it may just inspire students to become scientists and look for the answer themselves. Discussing gaps in the fossil record may inspire new paleontologists. There are plenty of things science doesn't have nailed yet, and having a logical discussion of those things could inspire people to figure them out.

But telling kids that "God is the reason" does just the opposite. It stifles curiosity and investigative thinking. It could tip the balance for a child from becoming a scientist to becoming a mindless drone who accepts what they are told. And that's where you can see the real agenda here.

Once again, the liars are taking what they do and assigning it to their opposition. They claim scientists are stifling argument, when that is really what religion does best. And now that their brain-drain is finally being pushed out of the classroom, they are pissed! If people start thinking for themselves, who is going to give 10% of their income to the church? That steady supply of fresh altar boys may dry up! They might have to get real jobs and start actually... working, eww!

>> ^schmawy:
108,000 results for "dawkins, child abuse" (0.18 seconds)


Only 63 yahoo hits for a "large gap in the fossil record" (3:50)? Oh my, I hope nobody ever tells him the results for "dawkins horse tentacle orgy" (1,450)

You lift 40 tons,
what do you get,
a sift full of whiners
and a big server-debt

St. Peter don'tcha call my cause I can't leave
I owe my soul to a guy named steve (jobs)

Happy B-day, glorious leader. May your fossilized records be preserved for a long long time.

1. "plant"-animal hybrid reference is appropriate because it is the energy pathways being discussed, not the food source.

2. Photosynthesizing humans may have evolved. but they would have been so appetizing in appearance and delicious, that they would have been eaten into extinction by the carnivorous humans before they ever left a fossil record.

3. i think they should study this to see if through reverse-engineering, they can learn to graft discarded human fetal arms onto apple trees, and thereby grow trees that can pick their own apples! Just like in the Munchkinland suburbs!

Take your pick! There's plenty of transitional fossils in the evolution of...

whales...

butterflies (albeit quite recent evolution)...

and, well, how about the transitional forms from amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, reptiles to birds, and primate evolution... HERE

I mean, these include, but are not limited to:

Thrinaxodon
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Exaeretodon
Adelobasileus cromptoni
The famous Archeopteryx lithographica
Sinornis santensis
Aegyptopithecus
Australopithecus afarensis

...and I'm tired of pasting links. There's gotta be a catch here somewhere, because as demonstrated here, there are thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

That's a good question. I'll check my fossil records. I have them filed around here somewhere. I hear those things reproduced like crazy during the Flirtatious period. Let's see, was that before or after the Cambrian? I'm not too good with old stuff.

I don't get the idea of "misconceptions" or assigning this to the mystery channel. What misconceptions? What mystery? There's perfectly rational and plausible explanations for everything that happened to WTC 7 at this point. Heck, you yourself gave an explanation for the explosions this guy claims he heard (power transformers exploding).

I have to go back to the idea that people who argue that 9-11 was some kind of conspiracy are similar to ultra-conservative religious groups when they talk about evolution. Case in point: the crux of your argument here schmawy is that since we don't know second-by-second every single event that occurred inside WTC 7, it's equally plausible that someone blew the building up as it is that it fell naturally from massive structural damage and fires.

That sounds a lot like the kind of argument creationists make against evolution--since we don't have a fossil record of every single genetic mutation ever made since time began, it's plausible that some unseen Creator is behind the gaps in the fossil record. That kind of argument ignores the mountains of evidence besides fossil records that we have for evolution (such as DNA).

Do we know, second by second, what happened in WTC 7? No. But the overwhelming eyewitness accounts as well as the video and photograph data as well as the expert opinions of numerous groups who studied the collapse as well as the lack of evidence to the contrary (no explosive residue) give overwhelming support to the idea that the collapse was natural and inevitable given the circumstances of the day. It's not a 50-50 proposition or even a debatable one. The only real mystery here is why many people continue to believe that its more plausible for a building to be blown up by government agents in some elaborate insurance/global domination scheme than it is for it to collapse after having another building fall on top of it and set it on fire.

I'm sure some of us have seen this before, but I thought it fitting to post, and I had to type it out, because the copy I have is an image file. But this is What Evolution Is. Feel free to copy this and use it against any misguided individuals who believe, or agree, with the wonderful video above.

VARIATION:
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "Crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
SELECTION:
6) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
7) Characteristics tend to become more common over generations if they tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring which are able to reproduce in turn, and tend to become rarer if they tend to decrease such prospects.
"Sampling errors" can occur in populations that alter the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
10) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favour" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
11) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms.
SUFFICIENCY:
12) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of all life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.

That's what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these twelve points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.

Note that Evolution does NOT indicate how the first life arose; that's a question of Autocatalytic Biochemistry, and largely dependant on the definition used to distinguish "alive" from "not-alive". Also, Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture... But without evidence, they aren't science.

Other people's opinions, presented in the form of quotes, are not evidence against the theory of Evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions which turn out to be false. So lets' stick to the facts.

affirmative ghost rider...

"He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]."

Runon hellloooooo... Dave, you need a new editor. This is merely another example of one of a slew of poorly crafted and convoluted sentences that permeate your text. After writing several published papers and now a book chapter myself, I realise the trick is to keep it simple. A text isn't done when there is nothing left to add; it is finished when there is nothing left to take out. Sentences should be simple, and each should convey one or two points. More importantly in scientific papers, journals, and books, it is quintessential that you establish logos by referencing existing peer reviewed literature.

You might be upset, but hopefully you see my points. I am trying to explain to you that in science there are rules. If you want to set creationism up as an alternative theory, or understand science through a biblical lens, then you are absolutely doing a disservice to your cause by not using rhetorical appeals. It is also a disservice to write poorly, which you do. Really, how can you expect people to learn your thoughts with such magnificently horrible writing?

The following dissertation on the eye is lifted from Chapter VI, Volume 2 of The Quest for Right, a 7-book series on origins based on physical science:

Difficulties of the Theory. Although the eye is chosen as the category to be entertained, the investigation could have chosen any one of a hundred other theories promoted in On the Origin of Species. The relative point is that, if the eye had evolved through fine graduations or modifications, the proof must lie with numerous intermediate fossilized specimens which could be laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Nothing else will suffice, as the fossil record is all inclusive.

Darwin penned: “LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.” In other words, if one is to believe in evolution, he/she has to disregard the facts; specifically, the indisputable assertion that all species are well defined in the fossil record.

Darwin continued: “These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads [that is, distinct topics or categories]: …why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms [in the fossil record]? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? …In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected [for example, the eye], we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors [found only in the fossil record]; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral [parallel] descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”

Unable to find a transitional species; for instance, discovering a tiny break in the skull of any one of the several thousand species, which transitioned through minute variations to a full blown socket for the eye, Darwin looked to parallel descendents: a horse descending from a tapir, etc.

By Darwin’s own admission, geologists had not been unable to uncover a transitional species: “Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head [the subject of the evolution of the eye]. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous [containing fossils] stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected…

He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]. His reason ought to conquer his imagination [that is, belief in a Creator]; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case...”

It is a fact that Darwin attempted to overcome legitimate objections to his theory by doing a song and dance; that is, an elaborate explanation intended to mislead the reader and throw him/her off the path of the truth. For instance, instead of Darwin elaborating on how the eye could have been perfected while leaving no trace in the fossil record, he immediately began rambling about: the larva of the dragon-fly, the fish Cobites, fish with gills, swimbladder in fishes, branchiae and dorsal scales of Annelids, wings and wing-covers of insects, Pedunculated cirripedes, Balanidae or sessile cirripedes, neuter insects, rays, electric organs in fish, tail of the giraffe, the tail as the organ of locomotion in most aquatic animals, green woodpeckers, trailing bamboo, naked head on the skin of a vulture, savages, webbed feet of the upland goose, seal, sting of the bee, etc. The introduction of trivia, thrown up to block a difficult question, was a familiar song and dance routine throughout The Origin.

Darwin depended on the fact that, after taking two dozen or so detours of unrelated, yet, interesting tidbits of information the reader will have forgotten the head or category at hand. Said tidbits were also introduced in an attempt to prove that his wisdom could be trusted even above that of the Creator. And lest you have forgotten the head category at hand, it is mainly this: numerous intermediate fossil specimens must be discovered and laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Anything less would be unacceptable.

In Chapter X: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings, Darwin attempted to justify the lack of “numberless transitional links” found in the “same great formation.” The naturalist lamented that the lack of missing links to prove his theory was owing to an “extremely imperfect” fossil record:

1. that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care;
2. that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state;
3. that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation.”

Not desiring to be outmaneuvered by the Creator, Darwin attempted to interplay other theories to shore up his theory of evolution. For example, he called upon the important part that migration must have played as the various species escaped supposedly "oscillating continents" which arose from the depths of the sea only to sink again. In Darwin’s mind, vast continents bobbed up in down in the oceans, sinking and, thus, causing mass migrations and covering any transitional links with sediment. The drowned continents then bobbed back to the top to start the process all over again. In a final attempt at one-upmanship, Darwin supposed that the damaging missing links, which must number in the billions, may "lie buried under the ocean." Why else could they not be found in the fossil record to support his theory?

An arrogant Darwin showed his true colors when he suggested that the reader ought to strive to cast down a belief in a Creator and accept his theory even if there was no proof. Darwin had done just that; he had cast God and religion from his mind, stating that “it was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

In summary, Darwin conceded that the fossil record of the time, the ultimate guide by which the theory of protracted graduation was to be judged, was adverse to his concept, but not without just cause: it was simply the result of an "imperfect," or incomplete, record. Darwin used the term “imperfect” as a crutch over a dozen times—one grows weary of reading it. Darwin's only hope of vindication was that one day intermediate links would be discovered.

Note: Every fossilized skull that has ever been unearthed possessed sockets for the eyes; there is no exception. Any trip to a museum proves the point.

As blankfist has described above, science is a method for gaining knowledge. Religion is merely a hypothesis, or rather a huge amount of smaller hypotheses, which can be tested with the scientific method. Thus there is no direct confrontation or contradiction between the two. That being said, religion demands faith of its followers, which is the belief of something in spite of evidence, and this means that it is corrosive to the scientific method. This is bad. And this is why religion hold up to any scientific fact. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

The example of 1+2=3 is an overly simplistic one and not very useful, because there is only one correct answer; there can never be other answers, because math is a logical system. The world is not a logical system, and science is not merely logic.

An example which I think would be more apt, is the theory of a geocentric universe. Until Copernicus people had faith in the Bible's hypothesis that the universe circled around the Earth. His observations shattered that hypothesis and thus a new hypothesis was made, that the earth was circling around the sun. This has proven to be true through repeated observations and is as such regarded as a theory, or what we lay-people call fact. Every hypothesis that the bible has presented, which have been testable have turned out to be false, and thus it is within reason to regard the whole thing as bunk.

Evolution
Evolution is a theory, or what we lay-people call a fact. It has been observed in fossil records and is happening constantly every time any creature or life form has offspring. Evolution is the theory that life forms changes shape, abilities and such over generations.

Natural selection is a theory that tries to explain how evolution happens, which is why people call it Evolution by Natural Selection. Natural Selection says that the more you spread you genes, the more of your type there will be. (Seems pretty down to earth and intuitive, right?)

Evolution by Natural Selection is therefore NOT RANDOM, at all. Yes, any given mutations are random, but they are merely the catalyst by which natural selection works. Of all those random mutations, some are inherently better adapters than others and will procreate more than others, and that means more life forms with that mutation (which is no longer considered a mutation) will appear in the next generation. But I think we all agree on that particular point, but it is important to make it as clear as possible.

I have yet to see any knowledge gained from the bible that turns out to be true. Of course the things lifted from common sense, "Thou shalt not kill", that fact that gravity existed in the stories and so on are true, but any given hypothesis that the bible has made is always proven false, when it can be proven either way.

If something cannot be proven either way, there is no basis for evaluating it and thus it should not be considered in any situation. Doc_M, you say an agnostic says:

"there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis"

That is false. An agnostic does indeed not consider the things he is agnostic about. I am technically an agnostic, but I am technically agnostic about many, many things. I don't consider them, why should a possible god be considered, more than the pixie-faeries of bubblegum forest? (sorry, I'm being a bit snide there)
--
When religion is evaluated with scientific terms, we have to break it down into smaller hypothesis. One such hypothesis, which is pretty basic to almost all religions is, "is there a God?"; the term "a God" must then be defined, so that we can test that hypothesis. If it is defined like in the bible, that there is a being which created everything and continually watches and judges humans, then the evidence until now clearly point to the hypothesis being false.

As I've written above, no hypothesis derived from the bible has yet been proven true. Thus there is no real reason to consider any of it true, and therefor no reason to live by its laws.

Since the dawn of time. Track the fossil records and you'll see the Dark and Happy Channels preserved alongside the trilobites and early invertebrates.