"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Sun 31 Jul 2005 02:56:37p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:F99He.8339$DJ5.3005@trnddc07:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Sat 30 Jul 2005 05:01:49p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:1VRGe.6080$Tk6.5106@trnddc02:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Fri 29 Jul 2005 07:47:51p, "Honus"
wrote in message
news:HezGe.63$4e6.53@trnddc04:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...

If you want to believe everything evolved or "just happened" by
pure,
random chance, then that same logic would have you believe that a
tornado
could pass through a junk-yard and spit out a functioning Boeing
747,
just
by pure, random chance.

That, of course, is a -thorough- mischaracterization of biological
evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html



It is an over-generalization, but the root-point is the same. The
fossil
record provides evidence of many different forms of life -- but
there
have
been no transitional forms found, save for a scant few lizards that
appeared to have feather-like features that have been presumed to be
the
onset of birds. Well, that's still a presumption, or a leap in logic
or faith that is loosely based on fact, but not completely supported
by
the
historical record. Perhaps one day it may be, but not yet.

There are quite a few more transitionals than you realize.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



Which still requires "leaps in logic/faith" to span the gaps. It is
sprinkled with phrases similar to "we don't know", "remains unknown",
etc.

Another creationist fallacy. Anytime a fossil is found that neatly fits
between two others, creationists point out that the new discovery merely
creates two more gaps. If we have #1 and #3 and then add #2, the
question immediately arises "Where is 1.5?" It's never ending, no amount
of transitionals will satisfy, and a perfect line of of descent with
mother/daughter type relationships isn't going to be found. The
therapsid to mammal chain is particularly fine-grained, though. It's
worth investigating, for so-inclined.



Oh boy -- The unsettling problem with gaps is from your own cited URL!

g I see you missed the point. I also see that neither of us is going to
convince the other. That's okay. The creationists and their like-minded
cronies can continue praying with no discernable result, while science will
continue to advance...doing things, like oh, curing and preventing disease
for example. The fact of the matter is that science works and produces
results that improves the quality of our lives...and evolutionary biology,
being an increasingly more imoprtant part of modern medicine, is included in
that statement. If I'm sick, I'd rather see a doctor than a priest.

But the evolutionist is "convinced" in his belief nonetheless. Because
of that, I see little difference between the two camps.

I humbly suggest you look much harder.



Yes, I have; and keep finding the same evolutionary progression similar to
the following:

Here we see the fossil "WhattaMattaRex" (a lizard) from the yaddacene era.
A gazillion years later, we see the presumed Nth evolution in the fossil
"ItsaMattaRex" from the later Discocene era. While we don't know exactly
when Creature-A morphed into Creature-B, it is a foregone scientific
conclusion that somewhere in the gazillion years between the Yaddacene and
Discocene, a miracle occurred that we can't fully explain. So to keep it
neat, we simply discard the gap as insignificant and declare the Nth
evolutionary form as directly descended, based on a single tooth fragment
that we found in a mud layer on another continent.

And again, more gross mischaracteriziation, albeit unintentional on your
part.

As a layman, that's what I hear them struggling to explain. So it's not a
question of small gaps. It's a question of presumptions that necessarily
have to be made from time to time. The fossil record may yet yield a
clearer picture. Someday. Maybe. Who knows...

It already has, and you haven't looked very diligently. I'd recommend, for
anyone so inclined, to study up on the "twin nested hierarchies" and the
mapping of the human genome.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html