What does the fossil record say?

[tumbleweed41]

I think that would be the equivalent of me saying:

"No reputable scientist would align himself with atheism."

Or...
"No reputable scientist would align himself with making a weapon that could eliminate entire cities."

Or....
"No reputable scientist would align himself with the manufacture of PCB."

Personal opinion does not count in the scientific community.

It is not about personal opinion or morality.
It is about adhering to failed pseudoscience.
Like "Irreducible Complexity"

 

[wilsoncole]

Then you'd be an idiot, since atheism has absolutely nothing to do with science.


Then you'd still be an idiot, since that is an issue of personal morality and has no reflection whatsoever on the reliability and quality of a scientist's output and their commitment to the scientific method.


Again, see above.


You're right, which is why these scientists are no longer reputable since they aligned themselves with pseudoscientific notions that have already been proven to the scientific community at large to be false. It's the equivalent of no longer taking a scientist seriously if they continue to insist that the world is flat.

Then maybe you can tell me why those very scientists (including Michael Behe) are still gainfully employed in their respective fields? Eh?

This post has an infraction of Rule # 1:
"Forum rules:

1. Off-topic personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks are strictly prohibited either on the forums or by private messaging, frubal comments, signature lines and visitor messages. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

So no one can name even 100 living working Biologists of the thousands in the world today who deny that the Theory of Evolution is correct? Then why are we arguing about it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I did not write those things!
If you insist that I did, you will have to prove it. Make sure you provide the Reply #s in your proof.

I will be sure to keep a copy this post in my file.

Wilson

My apologies. I realized what the problem was. I was addressing the both of you in two different post and made an error to whom I was responding to. Thankfully it wasn't too late to go back and fix it. I have made the appropriate changes.

In any case, it tells me that you are so desperate for a concession on my part that you will stoop to deceit and go to such lengths in order to manufacture such concession.

And as you can clearly see from above I have made an apology and I have fixed the mistake in my previous post to reflect the actual person I was responding to. So your claim of me being deceitful is false.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"Hard to understand" is on your part.

Why in the world does every one of those quotes (after the first one) say:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
I am wilsoncole and those messages were not originally posted by me, even though you claim they were!

Why is this so hard to understand?

Now I await your apology!

&#12288;
Wilson

Apology post has been posted. I was, at the time, responding to two different posts.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So no one can name even 100 living working Biologists of the thousands in the world today who deny that the Theory of Evolution is correct? Then why are we arguing about it?

It is a head scratcher considering the thread is about what the fossil record says. Painted Wolf tried to put the train back on the rails with a few pics.....but not takers yet...:sad:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then maybe you can tell me why those very scientists (including Michael Behe) are still gainfully employed in their respective fields? Eh?

Just because they're employed does not make them respected throughout the entire field of biology.

 

[waitasec]

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Dr Downs Ethnic Classification of Idiots.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Phrenology.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Preformationism.

A reputable scientist would not align themselves with Telegony

Nor would a reputable scientist align themselves with Irreducible Complexity.

I think that would be the equivalent of me saying:

"No reputable scientist would align himself with atheism."

Or...
"No reputable scientist would align himself with making a weapon that could eliminate entire cities."

Or....
"No reputable scientist would align himself with the manufacture of PCB."

Personal opinion does not count in the scientific community.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

you are right when you say...
"Personal opinion does not count in the scientific community"
and wouldn't the following be subjected to personal opinions that have been refuted by the scientific community?

Phrenology was especially popular from about 1810 until 1840. Following the materialist notions of mental functions originating in the brain, phrenologists believed that human conduct could best be understood in neurological rather than abstract terms. It is now considered a pseudoscience.

pseudoscience
a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

The Preformation theory states that "knowledge is possible only because God has endowed humans with certain innate ideas along with dispositions or aptitudes in certain ways."

Telegony
is a lost ancient Greek epic poem about Telegonus, son of Odysseus by Circe. His name ("born far away") is indicative of his birth on Aeaea, far from Odysseus' home of Ithaca.

Irreducible complexity (IC)
is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.

Irreducible Complexity Of Bacterial Flagellum Debunked

so explain why would any reputable scientist align themselves with pseudoscience and myth?


all definitions by wiki

 

[newhope101]

So we agree that it is a "beneficial mutation" correct? Wilson seems to think otherwise. Maybe you two can get together and work on your stance.
Are you saying that immunity is responsible for some organisms morphing into a hyppo and whale? Perhaps about the only beneficial mutation your researchers can see is somatic mutations that are not passed onto offspring.


So you are you admitting that it's evidence just not the type of evidence you're looking for?
No I am saying your evidence has nothing to do with supporting evolution.


It sure is. Adaptation is a part of Evolution. You may disagree but it doesn't change the fact.
Only a small part it seems. Some researchers suggest genetic drift (luck) is the more responsible. You are trying to compare resistance to disease to morphological changes required to speciate. Not the the same thing. We all agree that either God or evolution has provided the mechanism for kinds to adapt to changing environments. That does not explain why or how an aquatic organism decided to land.


Your opinion is noted.....but you do agree it's evidence right?
Evidence of Gods ability to create organisms that adapt while remaining the same kind. It is not evidence of any sort of macroevolution at all. These are somatic changes. No matter how much the immune system is evoked a chimppy thing is not going to become a human, nor some creature become a whale or hippo. Immunity is not proof of one kind becoming another no matter how long you give it. Surely you agree.


Where did I ever say it did? Where, in evolution does it say this?



Which fits nicely with Evolution.



Adaptation is a part of Evolution and fits with the the understanding of Natural Selection. Would you not agree? Wilson's source agrees.

Adaptation is not always a simple matter, where the ideal phenotype evolves for a given external environment. An organism must be viable at all stages of its development and at all stages of its evolution. This places constraints on the evolution of development, behaviour and structure of organisms. The main constraint, over which there has been much debate, is the requirement that each genetic and phenotypic change during evolution should be relatively small, because developmental systems are so complex and interlinked. However, it is not clear what "relatively small" should mean, for example polyploidy in plants is a reasonably common large genetic change.[13] The origin of the symbiosis of multiple micro-organisms to form a eukaryota is a more exotic example.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation. Adaptation and speciation are 2 different processes. Adaptation does not refute creation. Speciation is what you need to illustrate without the use of assumptions.



So you agree that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutations" though? Wilson doesn't seem to agree with you that I have.
I provided evidence demonstrating 70% of mutations are harmfull. That means 30% are neutral or beneficial. If you guys are classing immunity as part of this 30%, it leaves even less percentage left to produce morphological changes and germline genetic changes that explain macroevolution. Are you suggesting that immunity provides speciation? It has nothing to do with interferring with ability to mate and speciation.


You say that I've provided evidence of "Beneficial Mutation" and then you proceed to go on the attack. Is this some sort of defense mechanism on your part?

No I was just illustrating that your example was poor and inappropriate and it still is. You will need to come up with something better that that if I am going to bother entering a serious debate with you or anyone else.

The adaptive immune system is composed of highly specialized, systemic cells and processes that eliminate or prevent pathogenic challenges. Thought to have arisen in the first jawed vertebrates, the adaptive or "specific" immune system is activated by the “non-specific” and evolutionarily older innate immune system (which is the major system of host defense against pathogens in nearly all other living things). The adaptive immune response provides the vertebrate immune system with the ability to recognize and remember specific pathogens (to generate immunity), and to mount stronger attacks each time the pathogen is encountered. It is adaptive immunity because the body's immune system prepares itself for future challenges.

The system is highly adaptable because of somatic hypermutation (a process of accelerated somaticmutations), and V(D)J recombination (an irreversible genetic recombination of antigen receptor gene segments).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system
&#12288;
Somatic hypermutation (or SHM) is a mechanism inside cells that is part of the way the immune system adapts to the new foreign elements that confront it (for example, microbes). SHM diversifies the receptors used by the immune system to recognize foreign elements (antigens) and allows the immune system to adapt its response to new threats during the lifetime of an organism.[1] Somatic hypermutation involves a programmed process of mutation affecting the variable regions of immunoglobulin genes. Unlike germline mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation
&#12288;
&#12288;
You and your researchers can go on about immunity as much as you and they like. Unless you are alleging that constant somatic responses to infection and resulting immune response is responsible for turning a chimp man into a human and an aquatic organism into a hippo and whale, it really is a mute point when it comes to establishing proof of evolution and those kinds of beneficial mutations. How is a half wing usefull enough to be selected and fixed in a population? How has the human male Y chromosome become so remarkably different to the chimp male Y chromosome? How has 'accelerated' evolution conveniently missed legs growing from heads and the 70% kill rate?

 

[newhope101]

No I was just illustrating that your example was poor and inappropriate and it still is. You will need to come up with something better that that if I am going to bother entering a serious debate with you or anyone else.

The adaptive immune system is composed of highly specialized, systemic cells and processes that eliminate or prevent pathogenic challenges. Thought to have arisen in the first jawed vertebrates, the adaptive or "specific" immune system is activated by the &#8220;non-specific&#8221; and evolutionarily older innate immune system (which is the major system of host defense against pathogens in nearly all other living things). The adaptive immune response provides the vertebrate immune system with the ability to recognize and remember specific pathogens (to generate immunity), and to mount stronger attacks each time the pathogen is encountered. It is adaptive immunity because the body's immune system prepares itself for future challenges.

The system is highly adaptable because of somatic hypermutation (a process of accelerated somaticmutations), and V(D)J recombination (an irreversible genetic recombination of antigen receptor gene segments).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system
&#12288;
Somatic hypermutation (or SHM) is a mechanism inside cells that is part of the way the immune system adapts to the new foreign elements that confront it (for example, microbes). SHM diversifies the receptors used by the immune system to recognize foreign elements (antigens) and allows the immune system to adapt its response to new threats during the lifetime of an organism.[1] Somatic hypermutation involves a programmed process of mutation affecting the variable regions of immunoglobulin genes. Unlike germline mutation, SHM affects only individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to offspring.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation
&#12288;
&#12288;
You and your researchers can go on about immunity as much as you and they like. Unless you are alleging that constant somatic responses to infection and resulting immune response is responsible for turning a chimp man into a human and an aquatic organism into a hippo and whale, it really is a mute point when it comes to establishing proof of evolution and those kinds of beneficial mutations. How is a half wing usefull enough to be selected and fixed in a population? How has the human male Y chromosome become so remarkably different to the chimp male Y chromosome? How has 'accelerated' evolution conveniently missed legs growing from heads and the 70% kill rate?

Dirty Penguin...What this does illustrate is yet another marvellous created system that is clearly different in various life forms. Your researchers THINK the adaptive immune system arose in the first vertebrae. So again the evidence suggests differing systems of protection in various life forms. Your theories are required to turn the whole thing into an evolutionary mystery, where you think this or think that but do not know!

This family tree contains some surprises and puzzles. For example:

The closest living relatives of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) are artiodactyls, hoofed animals, which are almost all pure vegetarians.

Bats are fairly close relatives of primates.

The closest living relatives of elephants are the aquatic sirenians, while their next relatives are hyraxes, which look more like well-fed guinea pigs.

There is little correspondence between the structure of the family (what was descended from what) and the dates of the earliest fossils of each group. For example the earliest fossils of perissodactyls (the living members of which are horses, rhinos and tapirs) date from the late Paleocene but the earliest fossils of their "sister group" the Tubulidentata date from the early Miocene, nearly 50M years later. Paleontologists are fairly confident about the family relationships, which are based on cladistic analyses, and believe that fossils of the ancestors of modern aardvarks have simply not been found yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

Does your talk about sickle cells or immunity give any explanation to the above? No it does not.

What evidence do you have that a whale and hippo share a common aquatic ancestor, given this relatively new information? None

What evidence can you provide that supports a bat and a primate sharing a common ancestor? None

What you do know for now is that &#8220;there is little correspondence between what was descended from what and the dates of the earliest fossils of each group&#8221;.

Hence what the fossil record tells us is ..not much at all...and your evidence for evolution is assumptive and theoretical, based on probabilities and often contradictory.

 

[outhouse]

dribble , dribble and more dribble from the copy paste queen

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you saying that immunity is responsible for some organisms morphing into a hyppo and whale?

Nope.

Perhaps about the only beneficial mutation your researchers can see is somatic mutations that are not passed onto offspring.

Are you suggesting the (Sickle Cell Trait) is not passed on to offspring?

No I am saying your evidence has nothing to do with supporting evolution.

Sure it does. Evolution encompasses (Mutation and Natural Selection). No one here, not even me, is suggesting that's all to evolution rather it's part of it.

Only a small part it seems.

OK, so we are in agreement that the process of Evolution happens, correct?

You are trying to compare resistance to disease to morphological changes required to speciate.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply illustrating that "Beneficial Mutations" do in fact exist and is part of Natural Selection which is something even wilson's source agrees with.

Not the the same thing. We all agree that either God or evolution has provided the mechanism for kinds to adapt to changing environments.

Only those who believe in a god do. I have no empirical evidence for such nor do those who believe. While this does not rule out Abiogenesis, it's not something that is the focus of Evolution.

That does not explain why or how an aquatic organism decided to land.

Nor did I ever structure my post dealing with "Beneficial Mutation and "Natural Selection" to explain those topics. This is an issue you raise, not me.

Evidence of Gods ability to create organisms that adapt while remaining the same kind.

I can't argue your beliefs. That's not the focus here. All I can say is there is no empirical evidence to the former to give any credence to the latter.

It is not evidence of any sort of macroevolution at all.

What would you expect it to look like? Microevolution seems to not be disputed by either side. Biologist didn't/don't deal with creationist terms such as (macroevolution).

Immunity is not proof of one kind becoming another no matter how long you give it. Surely you agree.

Nor did I ever say or suggest it did. Surely you agree?

Adaptation is not always a simple matter, where the ideal phenotype evolves for a given external environment. An organism must be viable at all stages of its development and at all stages of its evolution. This places constraints on the evolution of development, behaviour and structure of organisms. The main constraint, over which there has been much debate, is the requirement that each genetic and phenotypic change during evolution should be relatively small, because developmental systems are so complex and interlinked. However, it is not clear what "relatively small" should mean, for example polyploidy in plants is a reasonably common large genetic change.[13] The origin of the symbiosis of multiple micro-organisms to form a eukaryota is a more exotic example.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation.

I agree

Adaptation and speciation are 2 different processes.

They could be viewed as two different processes but in view of Evolution they work together hand in hand. The wiki you cited says,

"Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation#cite_note-1This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology."

Do you not agree with your source you cited?


Your source also says;


"Adaptation is one of the two main processes that explain the diverse species we see in biology, such as the different species of Darwin's finches. The other is speciation (species-splitting or cladogenesis), caused by geographical isolation or some other mechanism. A favourite example used today to study the interplay of adaptation and speciation is the evolution of cichlid fish in African lakes, where the question of reproductive isolation is much more complex."


Do you not agree with your source?

Adaptation does not refute creation.

But it is great evidence for Evolution as your very own source contends.

Are you suggesting that immunity provides speciation?

Nope.

It has nothing to do with interferring with ability to mate and speciation.

I never said it did.

No I was just illustrating that your example was poor and inappropriate and it still is. You will need to come up with something better that that if I am going to bother entering a serious debate with you or anyone else.

Call it poor all you like. It's an example none the less. It was certainly a good example when wilson's "creation scientist" used it as an illustration for Natural Selection.

 

[newhope101]

Nope.



Are you suggesting the (Sickle Cell Trait) is not passed on to offspring?



Sure it does. Evolution encompasses (Mutation and Natural Selection). No one here, not even me, is suggesting that's all to evolution rather it's part of it.



OK, so we are in agreement that the process of Evolution happens, correct?



I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply illustrating that "Beneficial Mutations" do in fact exist and is part of Natural Selection which is something even wilson's source agrees with.



Only those who believe in a god do. I have no empirical evidence for such nor do those who believe. While this does not rule out Abiogenesis, it's not something that is the focus of Evolution.



Nor did I ever structure my post dealing with "Beneficial Mutation and "Natural Selection" to explain those topics. This is an issue you raise, not me.



I can't argue your beliefs. That's not the focus here. All I can say is there is no empirical evidence to the former to give any credence to the latter.



What would you expect it to look like? Microevolution seems to not be disputed by either side. Biologist didn't/don't deal with creationist terms such as (macroevolution).



Nor did I ever say or suggest it did. Surely you agree?



I agree

[/size]

They could be viewed as two different processes but in view of Evolution they work together hand in hand. The wiki you cited says,

"Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology."

Do you not agree with your source you cited?


Your source also says;


"Adaptation is one of the two main processes that explain the diverse species we see in biology, such as the different species of Darwin's finches. The other is speciation (species-splitting or cladogenesis), caused by geographical isolation or some other mechanism. A favourite example used today to study the interplay of adaptation and speciation is the evolution of cichlid fish in African lakes, where the question of reproductive isolation is much more complex."


Do you not agree with your source?




But it is great evidence for Evolution as your very own source contends.



Nope.



I never said it did.




Call it poor all you like. It's an example none the less. It was certainly a good example when wilson's "creation scientist" used it as an illustration for Natural Selection.

In summation you cannot provide any better evidence than that of somatic adaption which no one disagrees with. Your point is made.


The bible speaks of the creation of aquatic life and birds prior to other animal kinds.


Fish are a paraphyletic group: that is, any clade containing all fish also contains the tetrapods, which are not fish. For this reason, groups such as the "Class Pisces" seen in older reference works are no longer used in formal classifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish


&#12288;
Tetrapods (Greek &#964;&#949;&#964;&#961;&#945;&#960;&#959;&#948;&#951; tetrapod&#275;, equivalent to Latinquadruped, "four-footed") are vertebrateanimals having four limbs. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all tetrapods, and even snakes and other limbless reptiles and amphibians are tetrapods by descent. The earliest tetrapods evolved from the lobe-finned fishes in the Devonian.[1] They are now a dominant part of the terrestrial fauna, representing all known larger land animals. Some groups have even returned to an aquatic existence, including the largest animal known, the blue whale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod


So here is some evidence from an evolutionary site that suggests your genomic cladistics support a connection between fish and tetrapods to which birds belong. Despite the biased modelling one can see this to support a connective similarity within the first creation of fishes and birds as spoken to in the bible. After all, theories are hypothesis of evidence, in this case, genomic. Evidence that was extrapolated under the presumption of ancestry.

So far there is no contradiction within the evidence to the biblical interpretation of creation. This is also using what I see as flawed and biased findings at best. Yet still supports a biblical creation and certainly does not contradict it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In summation you cannot provide any better evidence than that of somatic adaption which no one disagrees with. Your point is made.

Actually, before you budded in, wilson (WAS) disagreeing with me.....which is why I persisted to state the facts.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2359510-post1473.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2361186-post1511.html

Adaptation is part of Evolution. Your wiki link you cited says it is.

The bible speaks of the creation of aquatic life and birds prior to other animal kinds.


Fish are a paraphyletic group: that is, any clade containing all fish also contains the tetrapods, which are not fish. For this reason, groups such as the "Class Pisces" seen in older reference works are no longer used in formal classifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish


&#12288;
Tetrapods (Greek &#964;&#949;&#964;&#961;&#945;&#960;&#959;&#948;&#951; tetrapod&#275;, equivalent to Latinquadruped, "four-footed") are vertebrateanimals having four limbs. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are all tetrapods, and even snakes and other limbless reptiles and amphibians are tetrapods by descent. The earliest tetrapods evolved from the lobe-finned fishes in the Devonian.[1] They are now a dominant part of the terrestrial fauna, representing all known larger land animals. Some groups have even returned to an aquatic existence, including the largest animal known, the blue whale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod


So here is some evidence from an evolutionary site that suggests your genomic cladistics support a connection between fish and tetrapods to which birds belong. Despite the biased modelling one can see this to support a connective similarity within the first creation of fishes and birds as spoken to in the bible.

So you agree with our researchers now or only when it suites your purpose?

After all, theories are hypothesis of evidence

No it isn't....:sarcastic

So far there is no contradiction within the evidence to the biblical interpretation of creation.

What are you going on about? I haven't even put your bible under any serious scrutiny in lieu of this debate.

This is also using what I see as flawed and biased findings at best. Yet still supports a biblical creation and certainly does not contradict it.

I never set out in this thread to try and dispute the biblical creation myth. I've primarily dealt with science of the natural world. I haven't dealt with untestable scriptural claims as it wasn't the focus of this thread. So why are you bringing this up?

 

[wilsoncole]

Just because they're employed does not make them respected throughout the entire field of biology.

No discussion here has covered the ENTIRE field of biology, you must admit, so don't try that! Behe's credentials and those of the long list of PhD biologists we mentioned testify to their competency.
Yes - just because!
Somebody values their work and pays them well to do it.
Most of them are professors whose superiors evaluate their work constantly. They MUST do a good job or get fired. Doing a good job EARNS respect.
Don't you agree?

"Just because" YOU don't respect them doesn't mean they don't have any.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

don't try that! Behe's credentials and those of the long list of PhD biologists we mentioned testify to their competency.

It goes to his competency if he continues to assert "irreducible Complexity"....

 

[newhope101]

Listen Penguin the bottom line to all your asides is this. You cannot provide any evidence whatsoever of evolution other than somatic responses like immunity which both creationists and evos agree occurs. Immunity will never lead to speciation lovey, no matter how you convolute and strain the point.

Immunity is not an adaptive change that leads to speciation darls. And you can find no evidence of anything that does. That is the point without straining asides.

I like what this guy has to say about it. He is some sort of fancy biologist.

In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses.

The Myth Of Homology

 

[wilsoncole]

It goes to his competency if he continues to assert "irreducible Complexity"....

So - why is he still employed as a competent professor of Biology? Eh?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

So no one can name even 100 living working Biologists of the thousands in the world today who deny that the Theory of Evolution is correct? Then why are we arguing about it?

You’re going to have to deal with this again:

ALL IS NOT WELL WITH EVOLUTION
There is a live and growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian theory.
Darwinian theory is not accepted by all scientists.

The complaints listed below comes from the world of science:
All amici question biological or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (the modern Darwinian theory of evolution) from a scientific perspective, as well as evolutionary accounts of the chemical origin of the first life on Earth. That is to say, amici are scientists who are skeptical of the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the origin and complexity of life.


Amici assert that the science education necessary to equip students for the 21st Century should not censor relevant scientific information about important scientific controversies (such as neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories), but should fully inform students about such scientific debates.

……….the current debate within scientific disciplines over whether chemical and biological (i.e., neo- Darwinian) evolution can adequately account for the origin of life and the development of life into its current forms. This debate is scientific and not religious in nature.


Scientific discoveries of the last few decades have led to greater skepticism over the ability of the mechanisms of biological or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory to account for the complexity of life we see today.

Amici represent a sampling of the growing number of scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism’s claim that the undirected mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic variations can account for the complexity of life. Amici also represent a number of scientists who are skeptical of chemical evolutionary theory’s ability to account for the origin of life.

……….that there are scientists who continue to raise scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories.1

Amici are doctoral scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinian theory and chemical evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. Neo-Darwinian theory is being re-examined by scientists in light of new scientific discoveries. Scientific discoveries of the past few years and the increasing body of scientific knowledge 1(R4-98-33) (“there are some scientists who have questions regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory”) available today makes the claims of neo-Darwinian theory far less tenable than in the early part of the 20th Century.

One biochemist has gone so far as to describe neo-Darwinian theory as “a theory in crisis.” An increasing number of scientific publications directly challenge neo-Darwinian theory, or key aspects of it.3 Recent discoveries have also led to greater challenges for traditional chemical evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the first life from non-life.

Neo-Darwinian theory presently remains the dominant theory of origins in the scientific community, but serious debate now exists about its sufficiency.

The scientists listed below have attached their names to these complaints:
BIOLOGISTS
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D. Molecular and Cell Biology (University of Texas at Dallas);
Yvonne Boldt, Ph.D. Microbiology (University of Minnesota);
William S. Harris, Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry (University of Minnesota),
Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine;
Cornelius Hunter, Ph.D. Biophysics and Computational Biology (Illinois University);
Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. Biophysics (Stanford University), Professor Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State University;
Scott Minnich, Ph.D. Microbiology (Iowa State University), Associate Professor of Microbiology, University of Idaho;
Ralph Seelke, Ph.D. Microbiology (University of Minnesota); Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin-Superior.
Chris Williams, Ph.D. Biochemistry (The Ohio State University);
Other Scientists
Gary L. Achtemeier, Ph.D. Meteorology (Florida State University);
Changhyuk An, Ph.D. Physics (University of Tennessee);
Eugene C. Ashby, Ph.D. Chemistry (Notre Dame University), Emeritus Regents Professor and Distinguished Professor, School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology;
Phillip Bishop, Ed.D. Exercise Physiology (University of Georgia), Professor of Kinesiology, University of Alabama;
John H. Bordelon, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering (Georgia Institute of Technology),
Senior Research Engineer, School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology;
Noel Ricky Byrn, Ph. D. Nuclear Engineering (Georgia Institute of Technology);
Nancy Bryson, PhD. Chemistry (University of South Carolina), Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Kennesaw State University;
A. Eugene Carden, Ph.D. Metallurgy (University of Connecticut), Professor Emeritus of Engineering Mechanics, University of Alabama;
Russell W. Carlson, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Colorado, Boulder),
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Technical Director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia;
Leon L. Combs, Ph.D. Chemical Physics (Louisiana State University),
Professor and Chair, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Kennesaw State University;
Michael Covington, Ph.D. Linguistics (Yale University), Associate Director, Artificial Intelligence Center, University of Georgia;
Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Emeritus Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University;
Cham E. Dallas, Ph.D. Toxicology (University of Texas, Austin), Professor and Director, CDC Center for Mass Destruction Defense, University of Georgia and Medical College of Georgia;
S. Todd Deal, Ph. D. BioOrganic Chemistry (The Ohio State University), Professor of Chemistry, Georgia Southern University;
Keith S. Delaplane, Ph.D. Entomology (Louisiana State University), Professor of Entomology, University of Georgia;
Allison J. Dobson, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry (The Ohio State University), Associate Professor of Chemistry, Georgia Southern University;
John M Ford, Ph.D. Physics (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University);
Christian Heiss, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of Georgia);
Dewey H. Hodges, Ph.D. Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering (Stanford University), Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology;
Timothy Hoover, Ph.D. Biochemistry (University of Wisconsin), Associate Professor and Associate Head of Microbiology, University of Georgia;
Richard J. Kinch, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (Cornell University);
Terrie L. Lampe, Ph.D. Chemistry (Wayne State University), Professor of Chemistry, Georgia Perimeter College;
Joseph M. Lary, Ph.D. Biology (University of Alabama);
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=619
&#12288;

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Amill]

So here is some evidence from an evolutionary site that suggests your genomic cladistics support a connection between fish and tetrapods to which birds belong. Despite the biased modelling one can see this to support a connective similarity within the first creation of fishes and birds as spoken to in the bible. After all, theories are hypothesis of evidence, in this case, genomic. Evidence that was extrapolated under the presumption of ancestry.

So far there is no contradiction within the evidence to the biblical interpretation of creation. This is also using what I see as flawed and biased findings at best. Yet still supports a biblical creation and certainly does not contradict it.

How is a bird being a tetrapod and related to fish somehow evidence to the Creation story? Lizards are also tetrapods, so can't someone just as easily see this as "evidence" that god made fish and lizards first? I think you just saw the words bird and fish in the same paragraph and got your hopes up.

What do you make of the fact that there are many land animal fossils, fish fossils, non-avian dinosaur fossils, pterosaur fossils, ect before any fossilized birds appear? That doesn't contradict the notion that fish and birds came before other animals?