Duck!

Where else could it possibly be shown? It happened millions of years ago over a period of millions of years. Are you suggesting that scientists take a fish and "evolve" it into a land creature in a lab or something?


Duck!

Kingreaper

whats the creationist definition of Macro-evolution? oh yes, the kind of evolution that would IMO take well over 25,000 generations (may be higher depending on the creationist) of selective breeding to produce, in a species with a generation time of at least 3 years (they wouldn't really accept that flies had changed, and bacteria, well, theres no chance of them accepting that) without human selection (or the people would be inputting the information) and preferrably in a totally uncontrolled environment (without too much observation, but with proof that they were descendants of the originals)

hyzer

quote: "Also - you need to be aware that true evolutionary theory does not state that we evloved from "apes", but rather that humans and primates had a common ancestor. This is quite a different notion."

Depends how one defines "apes." In Mr. Darwin's usage we are all apes.

Sven

Did you mean "anywhere else"? If yes, what do you expect?
It's apparently entirely irrelevant that these intermediary fossils are arranged just in the right order to show a transition, or isn't it?

Kingreaper

actually humans are apes, so we obviously evolved from apes, as did all other apes

Sven

How about reading their words instead simply assuming a lot of things which happen to be consistent with your world view? Of course PE was tested, otherwise it would have been very difficult to get this hypotheses published.

Mikie

What I'm saying is, that to look at one fossil, then pick up another one and see similiarity, then jump to the conclusion that one came from the other is absurd. There is no credible way to difinitively state that because one animal looks similar to another, as we find in the fossil record, that it necessarily evolved from the other, or is related in any way. It's like archeologists digging in the earth hundredes of years from now. Let's say they had no idea what an automobile was, and they dig up a sedan. Then they dig up a Lamborgini. They immediately assume that the Lamborgini "evolved" from the sedan. They assume they came from the same factory, and were related to each other, because after all, they're so similar. They assume this, because both cars have doors, a motor, headlights, and wheels. They MUST be related. In reality, all the cars share is economy of design. The model works well. Four tires, a motor, and some doors. They both, however, are not related. They did not come from the same factory, nor were they linked in any other way.


Economy of design by way of a common designer is just as good a theory, is it not, for biological life? I mean, from a scientific standpoint, why isn't a supernatural explanation plausible? Even if science limits itself by way of tangible investigation, does it make sense to ilimnate the possiblity of supernatural design and creation just because we want to hang on to our naturalisitic belief system? Is that good science? Is that the search for truth?

You also need to understand that there's a difference between what I'd call "operation science" and "origin science". Operation science would be science that can make use of the scientific method. It can test things, and observe things. Origin science, the science that is brought into play when studing the fossil record, can't test. It can't "observe". The evidence it examines is a record of what happened long ago, that's all.

Mikie

Actually, a hypothesis can be tested, but doesn't necessarily have to be. Where's your documentation?

Besides, until it's tested, it can't become a theory. Until then, maybe we should disregard it alltogether.

RufusAtticus

Actually, "fish to tetrapod" is a well characterized fossil sequence replete with transitional forms that show incremental change.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...t1a.html#amph1

Wrong on both counts. How about you read some of the actual scientific literature on PE and then try to claim is has never been demonstrated?

Wrong again. Gould and Eldridge were very clear what causes punctutated equilibrium in the fossil record. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html


Wrong. Evolutionary theory does not state that we evolved from any other extant ape species. However, humans are descended from earlier, now extinct, ape species.

Roland98

Of course, the fact that cars don't reproduce is a serious flaw in your analogy.