How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I

Fossils of large creatures are very rare, and it shouldnt be assumed that we would be able to find ALL or MOST transitional fossils. Regardless just for humans alone there are in fact transitional fossils.

Even if this weren't so, Charles Darwin was not an expert on modern evolutionary theory. He didn't even know about DNA! It is pointless to criticize him in any way. From the perspective of Darwin and his contemporaries there were GAPS. Move on! Things have been explained.

A plethora of transitional fossils have been found.


"It is commonly claimed by critics of evolution that there are no transitional fossils. Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature, or may be an active tactic employed by creationists, seeking to distort or to discredit evolution theory. The claim has been called a 'favourite lie' of creationists by Donald Prothero which is 'manifestly untrue'."

In a closed system, without inputs , yes. This is a true statement, so my goldfish (and his descendants) in a tank will not evolve to another type of fish, certainly not unless I feed him and them and his mate etc.

Furthermore, they really won't evolve unless there is a pressure to do so, so my Koi fish will happily remain koi-like fish forever if there is no selection to pressure them to change, that's really all evolution says should happen.

Ah organism X to organism Y in totality argument. Ok.

Consider that as a freak of archaeology, scientists discovered proteins from a T-Rex bone, (some 60 million+ years old), after sequencing , and comparison to modern creatures, basically, the "theory" that birds were the most direct evolutionary product of the much vaunted dinosaurs was confirmed, does that "PROVE" it ... no, it just makes it more likely.

archaeopteryx

that was a waste of my life. thanks for posting a link to a comments disabled total POS.

If evolution is a fact, then where are the millions of transitional forms of species in the fossil record that Charles Darwin himself stated were "MISSING but must have existed if my theory be true" in his book, "The Origin of Species?" On the contrary, the various species appeared suddenly, with no evidence of any previous form of that species in the fossil record. Roughly 80% of that record has been unearthed to date, yet not one example of an obvious transistional form has been found so far!

Trying to compare evolution to alchemy is stupid. Science knows what it's doing. And for the record, Glenn Seaborg (the element Seaborgium is named after him) turned lead into gold through nuclear transmutation in 1980. Science also knows what it's talking about when speaking of biological evolution. It is a fact.

Though it doesn't matter if you want to accept it or not. Time marches on. No one believes the Sun is Helios driving a chariot across the sky anymore.

Science: It Works, Bitches!

Just found a great video on YouTube that includes fossils from 500+ million years ago. Also has direct quotes from Dawkins and Darwin! Amazingly convincing! It's name starts out "Living Fossil Proofs".
watch?v=gAjM6CIUGLg

over long periods of time

To see fossils and DNA sequence similarity does not entail a belief.

such as a turtle into a horse?
So you think Evolution is about turtles changing into horses....sir, you fail

It is believable that various life forms could change into other life forms over long periods of time. We already have examples of that in story books, in non-organic areas! Alchemists claimed to be able to change base metals into precious metals (such as lead into gold)! But what would be the name label (parallel to alchemists) that we should put on those who can change one species into another, such as a turtle into a horse? Alevolutionists?

mag72net -

Utter nonsense. Plenty of people are intelligent enough to understand the scientific truth of evolution and yet still find place for God and Faith. Those who feel they must deny reality in order to believe in God are the truly faithless.

wrong magie boy, you neglect the millions and millions who aren't lunatic fundamentalist or even christians who take evolution for what it is. a description of a process which to deny is as hilarious as denying gravity.
HEH, given that the design (if it is indeed that) so closely mimics exactly what we'd expect if evolution alone is at play, it would insult the designer to say you weren't fooled by it.

After thinking about it long and hard, I think I finally figured out why so many people believe in evolution. They reason out that "if there is a God, I'm in a lot of trouble" so they simply go into denial (a psychological condition). It is like looking at a beautiful sports car and jumping to the conclusion that the sports car had no designer, but it just "happened by accident" over some undisclosed period of time. Would the real designer be upset? My guess is, God is too! We'll all find out!

you could remain ignorant or you could google observed instances of speciation. And then laugh them all off because you don't understand what you are looking at.