Do You Believe that Evolution is True?

[croak]

[size=+1][size=+1]Do You Believe that Evolution is True?[/size] ​

[size=-1]Author Unknown[/size]

[size=-1]If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.[/size]​

1. [size=-1]Something from nothing?[/size]
   [size=-1]The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?[/size] [size=-1]We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?[/size]
2. [size=-1]Physical laws an accident?[/size]
   [size=-1]We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?[/size]
3. [size=-1]Order from disorder?[/size]
   [size=-1]The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?[/size]
   
   [size=-1]ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.[/size] [size=-1]We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.[/size]
4. [size=-1]Information from Randomness?[/size]
   [size=-1]Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.[/size]
5. [size=-1]Life from dead chemicals?[/size]
   [size=-1]Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?[/size]
6. [size=-1]Complex DNA and RNA by chance?[/size]
   [size=-1]The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?[/size]
7. [size=-1]Life is complex.[/size]
   [size=-1]We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.[/size]
8. [size=-1]Where are the transitional fossils?[/size]
   [size=-1]If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?[/size]
   
   [size=-1]ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too![/size] [size=-1]Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.[/size]
9. [size=-1]Could an intermediate even survive?[/size]
   [size=-1]Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?[/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.[/size]
10. [size=-1]Reproduction without reproduction?[/size]
    [size=-1]A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient![/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.[/size][/size]

 

[croak]

1. [size=-1]Plants without photosynthesis?[/size]
   [size=-1]The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?[/size]
2. [size=-1]How do you explain symbiotic relationships?[/size]
   [size=-1]There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?[/size]
3. [size=-1]It's no good unless it's complete.[/size]
   [size=-1]We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?[/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.[/size]
   
   
   
4. [size=-1]Explain metamorphosis![/size]
   [size=-1]How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?[/size]
5. [size=-1]It should be easy to show evolution.[/size]
   [size=-1]If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?[/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.[/size]
   
   
   
6. [size=-1]Complex things require intelligent design folks![/size]
   [size=-1]People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?[/size]

[size=-1][Islam & Science] [Atheism] [Mainpage] [What's New?][/size]

 

[croak]

Sorry that the numbers messed up.

 

[Pah]

Evolution is certainly a better explanation than any alternative that's been discussed before on this board.

The fundamentals of evolution are proven whereas there is no sufficent evidence for a creator let alone the acts of a creator.

Bob

 

[Engyo]

My question is this:

If there is a Supreme Being out there who created all of this, why leave all of these confusing clues and evidence pointing at something besides Divine Creation? What purpose does this massive campaign of misdirection serve?

 

[jewscout]

Why can't a Divine force use evolution as a means of altering His creation as he sees fit? I can't understand why they can't coexist?!:banghead3

 

[croak]

Okay, so matter emrging from nothing. Let's see now.....if you made room for an area where matter could just appear, you'd have the advantage of other things being present, e.g. the air, the ground, etc. Now, why isn't anything, not even a molecule, being created? Maybe because it can't be.

Look: Oxygen particles were created from nothing. Why aren't we seeing new types of particles being created from nothing?

 

[Druidus]

We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

It wasn't an explosion. It actually just moved outward. There was no fire, there was no explosion. Besides, where's the fuel for the fire?

Physical laws an accident?
[size=-1]We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?[/size]

They didn't "develop". They were always there, as a fundamental part of our universe.

Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

You are wrong. Order did not increase. What makes you think that a human is more ordered then a shrimp, or an insect. Also, there is plenty of energy. It comes from the sun, and the Earth's materials.

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law. [size=-1]We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.[/size]

The "directing hand" was nature, or natural selection, which isn't a theory, but a fact.

Information from Randomness?
[size=-1]Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.[/size]

Information is really only the state and place in space of matter. It isn't the knowledge of mathematics or astronomy.

Life from dead chemicals?
[size=-1]Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?[/size]

The only replication system existing today you mean. Of course the odds are small then. RNA is very complex! The only natural thing to assume, is that there were older, extinct methods of replication. One scientist simulated the conditions of early Earth. He put water, containing everything this ancient water should have, in a glass tank. He periodically ran an electric current through the water, simulating lightning, which was far more common then. Within a week, he had all of the nescessary amino acids and chemicals to form life, compounds that were not there before.

Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
[size=-1]The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?[/size]

See above. Also, RNA nad DNA did not come at the same time. RNA came before DNA, and before RNA were more primitive forms of replication.

Life is complex.
[size=-1]We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.[/size]

Notice how we can't control earthquakes? Or hurricanes? Or lightning? Or pretty much any part of nature? Considering that nature does all that without a plan, I don't see why it is impossible.

Where are the transitional fossils?
[size=-1]If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?[/size]

We have many actually. You'd see them if you looked for the information. Also, do you realize that fossils are extremely rare, because they tend to disintigrate?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! [size=-1]Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.[/size]

Dinosaurs with feathers (Many, many species are believed to have had feathers, especially in the cretaceous)? Small dinosaurs with feathers (Raptors, such as the Troodon)? Small dinosaurs with rudimentary wings(Several species)? Small dinosaur-birds capable of short sustained flight (Archaeopteryx)? Birds (I hope this one doesn't need an example)?

That's not a transition?

Could an intermediate even survive?
[size=-1]Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?[/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.[/size]

Could you explain this a bit more? I don't quite get what you are saying. Also, it may strain the common sense of one who does not understand evolution, but it doesn't strain at all, if you understand.

 

[Druidus]

Reproduction without reproduction?
[size=-1]A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient![/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.[/size]

Certain compounds formed self-promoting proteins, which, when supplied with energy, recreate a copy of themselves. This simply developed into life. That's really all reproduction is, no? Asexual reproduction is fine for simpler beings, who are very small, or cannot move well. Many plants retain asexual reproduction, while also utilizing sexual reproduction. So do many animals. Some animals are also hermaphrodites, which can be either male or female. Now, a possible scenario. One day, as Bob the Eukaryote was lounging around, he started to split. Because of a relatively common mutation in his gene pool, that is observed today still, he splits into four incomplete cells, instead of two new ones. These cells, with only half a set of DNA, have the "urge to merge". They merge with the other half-cells. This was the first sex. Now, being a "common" mutation, is it reasonable to say that the possibility of two cells splitting into eight incomplete cells and then merging randomly, is there? Because these half-cells could shuffle the gene pool much faster then just mutations, they had a great potential benefit. More and more of these zygote producing cells appeared, until finally, they formed their own species. Later on, they split evolutionary lines again. Male and female was evolved in order to specialize sex, and reduce the chance of breeding with yourself.

Very possible.

[size=-1]

[size=-1]Plants without photosynthesis?[/size]
[size=-1]The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability[/size]

[/size]

Originally, they fed off thermal vents and minerals. Photosynthesis evolved much later.
[size=-1]

[size=-1]How do you explain symbiotic relationships?[/size]
[size=-1]There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?[/size]

Ummm... You state that like it's going to stump me, but it's quite easy really. They merely evolved co-dependantly. For instance, lichen. A combination of mold, and fungi. Without eachother, they would die today. However, in the distant past, they merely helped each other out (without knowing it, of course), rather thaen provide life and death assistance. Without the mold, the fungus could survive, and vice verca. However, they co-dependantly evolved to make their relationship more complex, in order to maximise the help gained. This caused them to need each other, much like we need mitochondria in our cells, even thought they are different species.

It's no good unless it's complete.
[size=-1]We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?[/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.[/size]

Are you saying that the ancestors of the automobile were useless? Are you saying horse-driven buggies were useless? And the wheel? Also useless? The eye was developed slowly, as a means to sense your surroundings. Originally, it was for certain creatures to know when to move to the surface of the sea, and when not. The ear? Same as the eye. Helped to be able to detect vibrations, in order to escape predators. The earliest ears were just clusters of nerves that detected movement in the surroundings, by means of feeling vibrations. The wing? Also the same. Animals living in trees or cliffs fall sometimes, and die. Feathers caused this to go down a bit, but it wasn't until a semi-wing evolved that they could safely fall from relatively high distances. This gradually developed into full flight-capable wings.
[/size]

 

[Druidus]

[size=-1]

[size=-1]Explain metamorphosis![/size]
[size=-1]How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?[/size]

I'm sorry. You're mistaken. The caterpiller doesn't evolve into the butterfly. It merely changes it's body. It also isn't a "mass of jelly". And why would it be stuck, even if what you say is true?

It should be easy to show evolution.
[size=-1]If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?[/size] [size=-1]ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.[/size]

We tend to have trouble demonstrating systems that take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to occur. However, there was a scientist that introduced atwo groups of the same fly species to two different environments. As the flies breeded, he increasingly altered the environments. Only those able to cope could survive, thus passing on there genes to cope. Finally, the flies could no longer reproduce together, and were declared seperate species. The very definition of evolution.
[size=-1]

[size=-1]Complex things require intelligent design folks![/size]
[size=-1]People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?[/size]

Have you ever heard of nanites? Well, it may be possible for them to evolve. Create a primitive robot, with barely the brains to replicate itself using the materials in the surrounding environment. Make it so that there is a chance, synchronous to organic life, that they make a mistake; a mutation. These will get more complex, until they are very succesful, even moreso then organic life. We know this, because of simulations on computers, which invariably produce more complex "life".

[/size]
[/size]

 

[Pah]

We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder

We know from exerience that explossions create order and, in some cases, beauty. Roads are created from explosions. The monuments at Mount Rushmore were created by explosion

Bob

 

[painted wolf]

fireworks are beautiful explosions. Volcanos are also wonderful, distructive and creative all at the same time. They lead to the growth of new land and fertilize the land around them.

as for the rest *sigh* I don't understand why Creationists say "abiogenisis is wrong because life cant come from nothing" then they turn around and say "God just waved his hands and poof there it was" Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black???? :banghead3

oh, and we do have transitional fossils, and for-runners of Trilobites thanks for asking.
http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/origins.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/trends.html

if you want to know more about transitional fossils just ask... its a bit of a hobby of mine :jam:

wa:do

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't understand why Creationists say "abiogenisis is wrong because life cant come from nothing"

I think what creationists should say is "There is no data supporting abiogenesis, thus until such data arises science cannot reasobnably accept the hypothesis of abiogenesis"

turn around and say "God just waved his hands and poof there it was"

I believe the idea is that God is supernatural and thus able to do things nature cannot.

if you want to know more about transitional fossils just ask... its a bit of a hobby of mine

I would like to know some good sites that put forth good arguements for transitional fossils.

 

[painted wolf]

But if god only had nature to work with why the big fuss? (This boggles my mind! I guess its just the different thought process because I'm not Judeo-christian.)
Anyway, here are some nice sites that have cladograms that are interactive.

this one shows the liniage of the horse. From small forest browsers to grassland grazers. It is complete with side liniages as evolution doesn't move in a strait line but likes to play around with different things.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm

This one is great for the transition from dinosaurs to birds and various stops on the way. Birds with teeth and claws, birds with claws but no teeth, birds with teeth but no claws. (and possibly back to dinosaurs: some paleontologists think that Dromeosaurs are secondarily flightless dino-birds, they have some good evidence. But I wont get into that one unless you ask :jiggy: ) http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/coelurosauria.html
http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/avialae.html

There are more but I think this is a good start. If you have any questions on what is there. (the dino to bird seriese is less intuitive than the horses) Just let me know. If you want more say from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal I can point you in that direction as well.

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would like to know some good sites that put forth good arguements for transitional fossils.

See

• 
  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
• Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
• No Transitionals in the Fossil Record!!!

TalkOrigins is the standard. The Darwin site (#3) is my favorite - be sure to follow the links.

 

[Yerda]

Author Unknown

I'm not surprised.

If any of the questions are really stirring you RearingArabian, you could pick up a biology textbook. Some of these points are clear before you can even smell a whiff of evolution.

Is anti-evolution synonymous with uneducated?

 

[WitnessofJah]

CAN THIS CREATE ITSELF...?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No accident necessary. Your ignorance of astrophysics does not constitute evidence for Genesis. BTW - great photograph; godless nature is truly awe inspiring.

 

[fromthe heart]

Scientists haven't proven we evolved...the just have a theroy. My personal beliefs come from understanding that in our most creative minds we can not imagine God in all His glory...God simply IS. His ways are not our ways and I imagine He get's quite a chuckle from watching those who try to prove He doesn't exsist. Man doesn't thoroughly even understand the human body or we'd have cures for anything that ills us...in that fact how then can we really explain the intricates of each part of human function...God created it all and He is the only one who knows just how and why we are made as intricate in detail.


This is my personal opinion and I do not intend to make light of anyone elses beliefs.

 

[meogi]

just have a theroy.

I don't even want to touch on this anymore... bah.

My personal beliefs come from understanding that in our most creative minds we can not imagine God in all His glory...God simply IS.

Switch 'god' and 'his,' with 'the universe' and 'its.' Although I personally believe we can imagine it in all its glory... as well as understand.

I imagine He get's quite a chuckle from watching those who try to prove He doesn't exsist.

Didn't know anyone was trying to do that... propaganda?

God created it all and He is the only one who knows just how and why we are made as intricate in detail.

So we should stop trying to find out for ourselves?