Five questions that evolutionists can't answer

[wishful]

There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution, with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage. There are many of these statistical impossibilities required to bring about the evolution of the human species. How can you, the evolutionist, be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

Interdependent genes demonstrate limits to evolution

Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature. The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics. Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle. In addition, this study demonstrates that the ability of organisms to evolve is limited. (Gunter Wagner. 1998. EVOLUTION: Complexity Matters Science 279:1158) and David Waxman, Joel R. Peck. 1998. Pleiotropy and the Preservation of Perfection Science 279: 1210.)

2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?

A new study compared the speed of enamel formation in teeth from over 100 Neandertal fossils compared to upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic Homo sapiens (ancient modern humans) and Homo antecessor and Homo heidelbergensis. The upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic H. sapiens exhibited identical dental development compared with modern humans. However, both Homo antecessor and Homo heidelbergensis developed much faster than modern humans while Neandertals developed even faster than their "ancestors." This study provides even more evidence that Neandertals were not ancestral to modern humans.

Rapid "evolution" of the human brain

Studies as early as1975 showed that the sets of proteins found in the brains of chimpanzees and humans were virtually identical. The question naturally arose as to why humans and chimpanzees are so different. A new study provides at least a partial answer to the question. Researchers collected brain, liver, and blood samples from humans, chimps, macaques, and orangutans, isolated RNA from each sample and calculated the amount of RNA produced for 12,000 genes. Little difference was found among the species for the liver and blood samples. However, big differences were detected in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees, although gene expression between chimpanzees' and the other primates' brains was about the same. The results show that regulation of gene expression is unique in the human brain compared to all other primates.

Of mice and men - little genetic difference!

Previous genetic studies have shown that chimpanzee and humans DNA differs by only 1.5%. This was said to be powerful evidence of common descent. Scientists are now sequencing the murine (mouse) genome and have come upon some rather startling data regarding a comparison of the murine and human genomes. So far, only chromosome 16 has been fully sequenced in both species. However, the results show that human and murine DNA differ from each other by only 2.5%. This is very surprising, since, according the evolutionary theory, the two species diverged 90 million years ago. The problem for the theory of evolution is that this small difference between mice and humans makes the difference between humans and chimpanzees look huge. Whereas it took 90 million years of evolution to produce 2.5% difference in DNA sequence, humans and chimpanzees diverge 1.5% in less than 10 million years. Why has evolution sped up so much during the evolution of primates? Maybe 1.5% is a really big difference?

Of chimps and men - more genetic difference!

Previous genetic studies have shown that chimpanzee and humans DNA differs by about 1.5%. However, this difference was determined by examining the base pair sequence by another nucleotide or replacement of one amino acid in a protein by another amino acid.">substitutions within certain sequenced genes. Recently, the human genome was completely sequenced and sequencing of the chimpanzee genome is well on its way. Preliminary results confirm previous results regarding base pair substitutions (estimated at 1.4%). However, sequencing reveals that insertions and deletions result in another 3.4% difference between human and chimp DNA. Therefore, the overall difference between chimp and human DNA is nearly 5%, which represents an almost insurmountable amount of rapid evolution.

Another blow to multiregional evolutionary theory

The multiregional evolutionary theory claims that humans are descended from multiple hominid forms (Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc.). Recently, proponents of this theory have claimed that fossils show that an archaic Homo erectus from Java shared key features with living Asians and early modern humans in Australia. Their conclusion was that Asian H. erectus passed on some of its DNA to modern Australians and Asians (Science, 12 January 2001, p. 293). A recent genetic analysis of Asians, however, explodes this theory. The study, examining more than 1000 Asian men, determined that all of these men came from one source, between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago. The study is so convincing that some multiregional evolutionists have now dropped this theory. At the annual meeting of physical anthropologists in Kansas City, Missouri, one self-described "dedicated multiregionalist," Vince Sarich of the University of California, Berkeley, admitted:

"I have undergone a conversion--a sort of epiphany. There are no old Y chromosome lineages [in living humans]. There are no old mtDNA lineages. Period. It was a total replacement."

Gibbons, A. 2001. Modern Men Trace Ancestry to African Migrants. Science 292: 1051-1052.
Yuehai Ke, et al. 2001. African Origin of Modern Humans in East Asia: A Tale of 12,000 Y Chromosomes. Science 292: 1151-1153.

A new study has examined the mtDNA sequences of two Cro-Magnon specimens dated to 23,000 and 25,000 years old. One specimen (Paglicci-25) had no sequence differences from the modern reference sequence, and the other (Paglicci-12) only one substitution. It is remarkable that so little change in the sequence had occurred over the last 23,000 years. The ancient Cro-Magnon mtDNA and modern European mtDNA differed by only 2-3 base pairs on average (see table below). This difference is even less than that observed among modern Europeans! In contrast, these ancient modern humans differed from nearly contemporary Neandertals by an average of 24 base pairs.
Table 4. mtDNA Sequence Variation Among Modern and Ancient Hominids Individual Modern Europeans Neandertals
Mean Min. Max. s.d. Mean Min. Max. s.d.
Paglicci-25 2.3 0 11 1.8 24.5 23 28 2.4
Paglicci-12 3.2 0 10 1.7 23.5 22 27 2.4
Modern Europeans 4.4 0 18 2.3

According to the authors of the study:

"Although only six HVRI sequences of ancient a.m.h [anatomically modern humans] and four sequences of Neandertals are available to date, the sharp differentiation among them represents a problem for any model regarding the transition from archaic to modern humans as a process taking place within a single evolving human lineage."

Caramelli, D., C. Lalueza-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegnii, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani, and G. Bertorelle. 2003. Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 6593-6597.

back

There are no transitional forms found, only the end product. David Kitz said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."[2] David Kitts is an evolutionist. Even if one or two were found, they are suspect even among evolutionists and in order to prove evolution, you would need hundreds of thousands everywhere.

The once so-called Nebraska man was later re-analyzed and found to be Nebraska Pig. The piece of evidence found was lacking in integrity as only one tooth was found. Later, more of the skeleton was found and it was indeed the skeleton of a pig.

Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape. (see Lucy)

Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' "[3] Does evolution have enough time? No.

3) How can the evolutionist explain the problems with the fossil record?

Fully formed crustacean found from the early Cambrian

In a huge setback for evolutionists, scientists have discovered a true crustacean in early Cambrian strata from Shropshire, England. In a recent issue of Science, Drs. Siveter, Williams, and Waloszek. announced the discovery of a fossil phosphatocopid ostracod, which is preserved extraordinarily well, including all its delicate limbs cast in calcium phosphate, clearly allowing it to be classified as a crustacean. Very few fossils of this great antiquity reveal so much detail or can be interpreted with such certainty. Although the discovery is clearly at odds with evolutionary theory, an analysis in the same issue by Dr. Richard Fortey comes to the remarkable conclusion that this discovery explodes the Cambrian explosion. Dr. Fortey believes that this discovery will foreshadow the discovery of precursor organisms from the pre-Cambrian. Of course, the fact that this has not happened yet does not hinder the evolutionists from wildly speculating that the Cambrian explosion will be overturned. Dr. Fortey does make a rather telling admission at the end of the article (followed by the usual party line):

"Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian. At the moment, there are almost as many explanations as there are animals caught in this belated "explosion." But it is more than likely that the evolutionary fuse was lit long before the Cambrian."

D. J. Siveter, M. Williams, and D. Waloszek. 2001. Science 293: 479.
Fortey, R. 2001. The Cambrian Explosion Exploded? Science 293: 438-439.

According to evolutionary teaching, the "Geologic Column" is a map of evolutionary history. Supposedly all fossils fit into a specific order, simple to complex. However, some flaws are to be found. Recently, fish scales were found in the "Cambrian layer" when according to the "column", fish did not appear until much later.

All over the world can be found layer-transversing fossils. A typical specimen is a tree running vertical through thousands of layers. Possible explanation: Those layers weren't laid down over billions of years, unless ancient trees had the capability to grow through solid rock, void of all sunlight. Lest the reader even consider such a wild notion, or one like it, some of these trees are found up-side-down. Indeed, they spell nothing but sudden catastrophe.

The trilobite is supposed to be very simple life form, therefore being found in the bottom layers of time (Cambrian). Yet when they are carefully magnified, one will discover that some species have eyes, and complex eyes at that. Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, concluded, "Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals … ."

4) Considering how quickly new generations of bacteria are formed, why haven't scientists seen any evidence of evolution in the laboratory?

Scientists have seen bacteria exchange genetic material. They have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? No. Have they ever seen one type of bacteria, such as E.coli, become some other type of bacteria that is not (in this case) E.coli? No, they haven't. In fact, with over a hundred years of work with E.coli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of E.coli minimum that have been witnessed), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli. So it's your call. Is that macroevolution? By some evolutionists' standards it qualifies.

Helen Fryman

5) The last question is quoted in entirety.

QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?

RESPONSE: It doesn't make any sense to me, either. There is no reason! The rationale is that their best food source was in the water (when they were land animals) and thus they spent so much time in the water they gradually adapted to it. However, please understand that the same people postulate this animal coming OUT of the water and adapting to land some aeons before... This would have been the case for each of the mammals in the seas. You might be interested in Ashby Camp's analysis of "whale evolution" here: http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.htm. He's got several good analytical articles there on different "stages" in claimed evolution. Our option, of course, is simply to believe God's explanation of creation and to notice that we don't see any evidence of one sort of thing changing into another today. What evolution is doing is taking an idea that is non-testable and non-repeatable and declaring it fact by definition and imagination. Their "transitional fossils" are transitional in the eye of the beholder. What the facts tell us is that these are dead and gone animals. (You might also want to note that there are no "transitional" plant fossils claimed. Ginkos, palms, ferns -- they all stay the same in the fossil record.)

I'll even sweeten the pot!

If anyone can answer all the questions to my satisfaction, then I will give them an Austin Stratocaster. It has upgraded Sperzle Tuning Machines. Those alone are worth $50.

The entire guitar, with the gig bag, and a set of extra strings and a pick is worth $225.

Let the games begin!

By the way, I've written a lot of songs on this guitar and I consider it a really valuable piece of my memorabilia. It would pain me greatly to have to give it away.

[Singular Intellect]

This is going to be quite entertaining..depending on the patience of those in power that is.

[Admiral Drason]

Okay so I take it your a creationist.

I'll answer #3 for you.
They only found one fossil of a crustacean within the pre Cambrian layer of setament. It may have been deposited in that layer of setament by a number of geological occurances.

The problem with your question is that they have only one example of this crustacean in the layer. Its not like they discovered several specimens of a new undiscovered species. Instead they found a pre existing species that is known to have lived at a much later date. Thus we should logicly assume that it was infact not from the pre Cambrian era but in a more modern time period and through an unknown means had been deposited in the older layer of setament.

[Surlethe]

There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution, with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage. There are many of these statistical impossibilities required to bring about the evolution of the human species. How can you, the evolutionist, be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

You don't understand evolution. Do yourself a favor and read up on it, and try to actually understand it, instead of being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups.

2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?

http://theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

They're there. You've been lied to.

3) How can the evolutionist explain the problems with the fossil record?

What problems? Every single fossil ever discovered has been a transitional fossil. Creationist groups like to point out "gaps", but the reality is that to those groups, every time a new fossil is found that fits the pattern and fills a gap, suddenly there are two new gaps to find!

4) Considering how quickly new generations of bacteria are formed, why haven't scientists seen any evidence of evolution in the laboratory?

We have! Evolution doesn't say "E. Coli should turn into elephants", it says "E. Coli should change over time." In fact, you might be interested to learn that bacteria have evolved to eat nylon! Isn't that amazing?

5) The last question is quoted in entirety.

QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?

This nicely illustrates the whole point of evolution: it's a local process without a goal. You're attributing to it predictions and properties -- i.e., a purpose -- that it does not possess.

I'll even sweeten the pot!

If anyone can answer all the questions to my satisfaction, then I will give them an Austin Stratocaster. It has upgraded Sperzle Tuning Machines. Those alone are worth $50.

The entire guitar, with the gig bag, and a set of extra strings and a pick is worth $225.

Let the games begin!

By the way, I've written a lot of songs on this guitar and I consider it a really valuable piece of my memorabilia. It would pain me greatly to have to give it away.

The key is "to your satisfaction". How will we know that you aren't simply setting an arbitrarily high standard of satisfaction?

[Admiral Drason]

Oh and I can answer number five for you as well.

Have you ever heard of a Sea Otter. They swim around and eat clams and things. They have specilized feet that are webbed and tails that act as rudders. For the most part aquatic mamals evolved from creaters like this. Why might you ask? because the ocean happens to be where most of the food on this planet is, and if those fuzzy little critters are ever going to be able to partake of such a nice feast they are going to have to adapt ways in which they can get the food. Thus they lost all the hair because it caused more drag in the water. The flippers grew because they were better rudders for the animals. and the tail became broad and became a large flipper because hell the tail was already helping propel the critter why not let it grow out so that it can be extreamly efficent.

we don't see any evidence of one sort of thing changing into another today

Sea Otter, Beaver, Duck Billed Platipuss. All have adapted for an aquatic environment and all could just as easily evolve even further into whale like creatures.

[Noble Ire]

There are others here far more qualified to address your points than I, but I will answer one. Your fourth question, the one on bacterial mutation, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution actually is. The argument you quote freely acknowledges the manifestation and propagation of antibiotic-resistant organisms; this is essentially evolution on a smaller scale, or microevolution, if you prefer. If this process of reproductive selection continues until enough biological changes are present in the target population so that they cannot reproduce with individuals from the "unmutated" population; when this happens, a new species has formed. If this does not occur in a population of bacteria, it is likely because only a single environmental factor, antibiotic presence, has changed, meaning that the organisms present must not adapt enough to reproductively alter their offspring. The organisms need not change in any other way; evolution does not mean that one creature instantly metamorphoses into a completely different one.

[dworkin]

There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution, with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage. There are many of these statistical impossibilities required to bring about the evolution of the human species. How can you, the evolutionist, be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

Gene gangs (genomes) change together in populations resulting in structural changes. Over time. It is not a statistical impossibility since natural selection is not a random process. What part of 'differential change of allele frequency in a population' don't you understand?

2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?

Holy quote mining Batman!
The fact that neanderthals and the the australopithicines are not direct ancestors of modern humans in no way invalidates evolution anymore than the existance of your aunt invalidates the fact that your grandparents existed. Although I can see why in your case why evidence for your parents is lacking since I would disown such a complete imbecile as being part of my genetic legacy.

Life and evolution on earth is powered by a gigantic nuclear inferno some 152 million kms away. It gets all the energy it needs and more and so is in no violation of the 2nd law. Of course you would be aware of this if you wern't a drooling idiot.

3) How can the evolutionist explain the problems with the fossil record?

More mindless quote mining. New discoveries of fossils may well lead us to re-think the cambrian explosion but in no way does that invalidate evolution. In fact it refines our models of what happened. Of course we usually don't ex-plain this to creationists because they are idiots.

4) Considering how quickly new generations of bacteria are formed, why haven't scientists seen any evidence of evolution in the laboratory?

That is evolution. You don't realise this because you are an imbecile.

5) The last question is quoted in entirety.
QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?

It could well be so that it's anscestors would not have to associate with such morons like yourself.

[Superman]

Gotta hand it to this guy for naming himself appropriately. Wishful about sums all of it up...

[rhoenix]

Amongst the many misrepresentations of evolution by wishful here (which highly tempts me to do the same for "bearded sky fairy made everything!!one," but that's an aside), I'd like to point out a gigantic middle finger to your "evolution is a lie" part.

Wishful, meet the many wonders of Hawaii - pay special attention to the insect life that's evolved. You see, there's evidence for evolution (which is smart-people talk for "watching how life changes over time," since you don't appear to trust a dictionary) all over the world.

Your philosophizing of the evidence doesn't change the evidence. It just makes you look like an intentionally ignorant blithering idiot.

[Fire Fly]

Do you actually have an argument or a legitimate question you thought of yourself other than cut and paste? I once responded to an idiot who claimed that genetic mutations do not lead to increased genetic information. He responded with a cut and paste arguement of:

There are four big problems in mutations.

1 It is scientific fact that mutations are rare, which doesnt help evolution at all. If anything they happen 1in 10,000 and 1 in a million per gene per generation. F.J. Ayala Philosophy of science march 1970 page 3

2 Mutations are always random and never purposive or directed.
C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life 1962 page 68

3 Mutations are not helpful and they do not improve, they only weaken and injure H.J. Muller, in American Scientist Jan 1950 page 35

4 Nearly all mutations are harmful, and the affected passes it on to its off spring which if it is able to have any, and lessens the survival rate of the new generation. Julian Huxley, ( who helped in starting Neo-Darwinism but knew he was on thin ice and made the above remarks) Evolution in Action page 41

So maybe this will help you change your views...

Well, I looked up those papers and incidentally, the guy misquotes and contorts every single one of those papers and I also found a website which had the exact same arguments that this idiot thought would be oh so interesting.

[Superman]

Here's what gets me about assholes like 'wishful' here. No matter what he throws out, no matter how ignorant he makes himself look, no matter how stupid he really is, or how many strawmans he muster, when you get down to it, he is coming from 'magic is the answer.'

Guess what, wishful. There's nothing you can throw out that makes your position look any better. You're saying the magical invisible man did it. EVERYTHING looks better than that and makes more sense.

I wish just once these reality challenged morons could see themselves as they really are...

[Surlethe]

Hey, wishful: do you believe in the ultimate authority of scripture? If so, do you accept the doctrine of transsubstantiation? You know, when Jesus said, at the Last Supper, "This is my body ... this is my blood"? If you don't, why don't you accept it, despite the fact that Jesus, as the Word of God (see John 1:1), must be taken as literally as the Bible? Or could it be that the Word is not intended to be taken literally?

[Darth Wong]

There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution, with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage.

Show exactly how these genetic developments are "required" by the theory of evolution, as opposed to being an inevitable outcome of it.

Creationists rely on an often long-winded but quite predictable tactic of assuming that evolution theory leads to certain conclusions when in fact it does not, and then refusing to ever show how it leads to those conclusions.

[Darth Wong]

2) With the quotes below in mind, how can the evolutionist explain the lack of "transitional forms" for the human species and the problems of explaining how humans supposedly are descended from apes?

Your various sources only show that there are some differences between other species and humans. How exactly is this a surprise, and how does it refute the transitional fossils which have been found? Of course there are differences; the question is why creationists think these differences could not have evolved. Can you name even one human organ which is not present in chimps in any form?

Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape. (see Lucy)

They almost never find a complete skeleton, although "a few pieces" is a deliberate understatement. Moreover, there is no serious dispute that the pelvic region is indicative of an upright walking posture.

Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

Anyone who quotes this bullshit is either a liar or an idiot, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail.

3) How can the evolutionist explain the problems with the fossil record?

Missing portions of the fossil record are not a problem for the evolutionary theory. If you think they are, explain how. And give real sources from paleontology journals or universities, not a website.

4) Considering how quickly new generations of bacteria are formed, why haven't scientists seen any evidence of evolution in the laboratory?

They have.

5) The last question is quoted in entirety.

QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?

If the dolphin did not evolve on land and then return to the sea, why the fuck is it capable of drowning? Why does it have a complete set of land-dweller finger-bones in its flippers?

[SirNitram]

Another copy-paste creationist, with the added chicanery of offering material gain if one could meet his personal desires. Except, of course, his entire challenge is based on lies and obstfucation, he will not admit this fact, and he will most likely either flare up into a big creationist-bot until he's banned, or more likely, slink away, never heard from again.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, the fact that he quotes the idiotic "second law of thermodynamics" argument is all the proof we need that he has zero scientific education whatsoever, and that his sources are bullshit. Any source which states such a preposterous lie about the concept of entropy is clearly useless.

[Darth Servo]

Because I have a moment, I'll address #5

QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?

Notice the psychological projection; ASSUMING there is an overall plan in evolution, a directing force. Dolphins didn't CHOSE to go back to the ocean.

There is no "up" or "down" in the evolutionary scheme of things. There is only what works and what doesn't. Creationist morons assume that because at a point in the distant past animals comming out of the water made for an advantage that therefore going back to it must be a disadvantage.

Why would going back to the water be a disadvantage? Comming out of the water was clearly helpful the first time because there was all this new territory to exploit.

RESPONSE: It doesn't make any sense to me, either. There is no reason! The rationale is that their best food source was in the water (when they were land animals) and thus they spent so much time in the water they gradually adapted to it.

We will never know exactly why it happened but the fact is Dolphins breathe AIR, no gills.

Evolution only cares about one thing--how many viable offspring a species leaves in the next generation and for some reason or another, a group of mammals that returned to the sea eons ago were successful.

Our option, of course, is simply to believe God's explanation of creation and to notice that we don't see any evidence of one sort of thing changing into another today.

Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION. NO WHERE does God explain why he made such horrible design choices like air breathing mammals who spend their entire lives in the water. Creationists simply expect everyone to take it ON FAITH that there must have been one AFTER assuming their God is perfect, intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, all loving and such a being doesn't make mistakes, so the "apparent mistakes" must have a purpose in a beautiful case of completely evading the question.

What evolution is doing is taking an idea that is non-testable and non-repeatable and declaring it fact by definition and imagination.

And the fact that anyone who isn't brainwashed can clearly see that A leads to B.

Their "transitional fossils" are transitional in the eye of the beholder. What the facts tell us is that these are dead and gone animals.

That are not the same as the animals living today, although they have similar, clearly altered features.

(You might also want to note that there are no "transitional" plant fossils claimed. Ginkos, palms, ferns -- they all stay the same in the fossil record.)

Lie. We can see the transitionals everywhere, even alive today with the various patterns of their reproductive cycle.

Note: plants have a dual life cycle. A diploid period and a haploid period where one plant has the 2X chromosomes and the other has 1X chromosomes. It is somewhat analogous to animals and their reproductive cells sperm and eggs. The cells in the diploid half undergo meiosis reducing the chromosome number by 1/2 and giving rise to the haploid half of the lifecycle. The haploid half generates spores which disperse and eventually combine with the spores from another member of the species. This process constitutes the sexual phase of the plant reproduction, chromosomes from two different organisms combining into new combinations and gives rise to a new diploid plant.

More ancient plants (such as mosses) had the diploid half of the lifecycle taking care of the majority of the photosynthesis and hence the diploid plant was far larger than the haploid. This proved rather inefficient as it was the haploid half that was producing lots of spores to disperse. The gametes from the diploid half often didn't go anywhere and the plant based out of its parent. The plants we examined in the lab were no more than three inches tall.

The next major group was the ferns. They had a much larger haploid plant with rather small diploid plants. The spores form on the underside of the leaf and give rise to a plant about the size of a clover.

Next group was the pines. The haploid is now a big tree and the diploid is contained in the pinecone. Finally there are the flowering plants where the diploid is nothing more than a pollen grain (male equivalent) or housed in the pestal of the flower (female equivalent). The pattern is clear--larger haploid plants reletive to the diploid plants with the haploid taking on greater and greater responsibility for photosynthesis.

I'll even sweeten the pot!

If anyone can answer all the questions to my satisfaction, then I will give them an Austin Stratocaster. It has upgraded Sperzle Tuning Machines. Those alone are worth $50.

The entire guitar, with the gig bag, and a set of extra strings and a pick is worth $225.

Suuuuure you will. Just like Kent Hovind's $250,000 reward for proof of evolution to HIS satisfaction where he decides what is and is not legitimate evidence, sets himself up as judge, jury and prosecutor. Yes, very believable.

[Darth Servo]

edit: if there were no advantage to being in the water, you'd think a lot more species of fish and other marine lilfe would have gone extinct.

[Superman]

Did this jackoff do a hit and run post or what?

It will be interesting to see if he comes back.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Looks very much hit and run... I'm betting if he does "respond" it will be against an 'anticapated' from us evolutionists... IE another mass copy-paste agurment.

[Darth Servo]

He has nine posts between March 8 2007 and today. Seven of them are between April 25 and April 28.

[Akhlut]

You got your haploid and diploid generations bass ackwards there, Servo. Mosses have haploid 'adults' and diploid spores, whereas everything else is diploid as an 'adult' and haploid as spores.

Except when said plants are quadrapoidal (or is it tetrapoidal?). Or when they're hexapoidal. Or octopoidal.

Ah, the wonders of plants and how they can have absolutely absurd genetic compositions that would kill anything in animalia.

[Setesh]

You got your haploid and diploid generations bass ackwards there, Servo. Mosses have haploid 'adults' and diploid spores, whereas everything else is diploid as an 'adult' and haploid as spores.

Except when said plants are quadrapoidal (or is it tetrapoidal?). Or when they're hexapoidal. Or octopoidal.

Ah, the wonders of plants and how they can have absolutely absurd genetic compositions that would kill anything in animalia.

Advantage of having huge base pair chains. One of the longest densest gene sequences on the planet belongs to wheat. It gets really scary when you realize in some plants it is possible to have entirely different visible mutations on sections of the same plant.

[Lisa]

Looking at this guys other posts, he is a troll.

[Akhlut]

Advantage of having huge base pair chains. One of the longest densest gene sequences on the planet belongs to wheat. It gets really scary when you realize in some plants it is possible to have entirely different visible mutations on sections of the same plant.

Yeah, but isn't wheat also 3 species' genomes crammed into one?

Which, if anything, only increases the weirdness, but, still.

Ah, man, plant genetics is some whacky shit. Also helps evolution arguments considerably, what with the ability of plants to achieve speciation in a single generation.