For the record, I would not attempt a level.

In a bit, we'll tacke a few issues that have been bothering me.

We're on the edge of our seats.

.

Ok, Ambulocetus. And this question has to be raised. What exactly are the predicted properties one would expect to find as one passes from a land dwelling creature to a sea dwelling creature? Specifically how many changes are required to go from Ambulocetus on land, to a creature that spends the entire portion of it's life in the ocean? For some reason, this is not a question that evolutionary biologits ask alot. Can you guys put a number on this? What other part of the story isn't being told?

And as soon as we try and enter a quantitative estimate, no matter how loose, then a great deal of puzzlement starts to intrude into the otherwise sunny picture. Let's say 50,000 changes are required, and that's probably a conservative estimate from what i've read. Where are the other 49,000+ sequential changes? Doesn't Darwinian theory hold that changes are incremental and small?

After all, we're not talking about changes that are arbitrary. A creature must have these changes if it's expected to survive in the open ocean, and we don't see these changes in the transitional record.

Having said that, Ambulocetus is probably the best find in support of evolutionary theory, but you must ask the other tough questions in order to reach the next step in the development of the scientific theory. These questions are not being addressed.

Page 5:

http://www.albemarlefirst.org/sermon...rt2Web_000.pdf

Or was that link paraphrasing the same thing you were paraphrasing?

There is no answer to the questions though

Evolution does not pretend to provide a complete, step-by-step list of 'microspecies' lined up one after the other from primordial sludge to human. (Or from fish to mammal, or from photoreceptor to eye). It is a general process, which has been observed and which, if it is accepted, explains a huge variety of natural phenomena, including speciation and the peculiar way in which living organisms are well suited to the environments in which we find them. If we are to reject this theory, it will be because there is a theory which explains what we see better and more parsimoniously.

If a theory predicts A,B and C it is not a disproof to say "Where's X, Y and Z?"
This doesn't even make sense - presumably he's claiming there are 50,000 changes in DNA - those aren't going to show up in the fossil record.
This is also ambiguous unless, as anticipated, we're back to the "Part of an eye doesn't provide any advantage" claim which has been demonstrated to be false and is equally false when applied to the gradual changes required for a sea-dwelling creature to evolve into a land-dwelling one.
You still haven't said what you think the theory of evolution actually is. (Or darwinian theory as that plagiarised post labelled it).

You have declared it false, then demonstrated many times that you don't understand what it actually claims. Science is amazing and evolution is a really brilliant explanation for what we find in the world - why dumb reality down just because it makes you uncomfortable for some reason?

There are plenty of answers to the questions. Most of them are "That's a stupid question" but nonetheless, those with any merit are addressed if you'd bother to find out what Evolution actually is.

If you plan on continuing this game, you'd do far better to google "information theoretic objections to evolution" or somesuch. Those arguments are harder to address (plus have the added bonus of more technical jargon to make the creationists look smarter).

Ok, time to do more research. You guys are putting up a good fight.

Do some research on this. Begin your next post with a statement of what you're actually attacking, since so far it hasn't been the theory of evolution but something creationists have made up.

Science and TOE do not claim to know many of the exact ways in which evolution occurred.

This is not a problem for the theory, or evidence against it.

Once again you show your bias on this topic without a shadow of a doubt. You are only willing to "research" articles against evolution, but you never look at or post about ones in support of evolution.

I am going to say this as simply as I possibly can at the risk of being rude. You are not honest in your quest for knowledge. You are looking only to confirm what you wanted to be true from the beginning.

To put it mildly, you're a scientific donk.

You need help demoneyes?

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+e...ient=firefox-a

lol, those sites are amazing:

Well, we are talking about evolution on a gambling site, so they can definitely prove that the theory of evolution leads to gambling

OMG I got halfway through this thread and my head exploded. I'm not saying what I do or don't believe in, but for those asking for scientific proof, give me proof otherwise. Prove evolution doesn't happen. It does and has in YOUR lifetime. Sorry if this has been stated, I just couldn't bring myself to read all of this. I'm going back to BBV4L where it's safe.

You don't even need to prove evolution doesn't happen. All you need is a better explanation/theory. Unfortunately for creationists, goddidit isn't one.

In before "ur a close minded atheist"

What? What better explanation do you need? I need a better explanation. Prove to me that god made everything. Prove to me that a human can split the Red Sea, or walk on water. No, not "I feel it deep down". PROVE it.

What he means is that it isn't necessary to completely prove evolution false in order for scientists to abandon it as their theory of choice. Disproof is too high a standard - all that's required is a better theory (which we don't have).

You guys are giving up then?

Yes you win. Happy?

People spent a lot of time educating 3 people in this thread who could have done it all on their own. They can at least return the favor, admit they were wrong instead of just disappearing like cowards. The fact that you've chosen to act like this is some sort of grandiose expectation is even more pathetic.

Yes, sorry, I expect people to simply not be cowards and to be able and admit they were wrong and biased. I know these are extreme views to profess in RGT, since normally when someone is proven wrong in here they just disappear for a few days or make a new thread, but one day I hope to see it happen from one of these ignorant clowns.