Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Dec
22
Researchers Find a Hidden Cost to the Internet
Proverbs 18:24
"A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."
Have you been on the internet lately? If so, it may be costing you more than you think. That's the suggestion of a study done by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. The study...
RSS

Show Me the Transitional Fossils!

 

Today's guest blogger is Charlie Wolcott, a certified math and physics teacher with a degree in Computer Science. In addition to the sport of fencing, he has been involved in the evolution/creation debate for about 12 years and believes that Young Earth Creationism is the best model that fits the data.
The one thing Darwin feared the most about his theory of evolution lies in the earth: fossils. He knew that unless the transitions between the kinds were found, his theory would fall apart. Today, more than 150 years later, what do we find? An extreme lack of transition fossils. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. I agree. It takes a natural disaster such as a volcanic eruption, or perhaps an earthquake or a Flood to produce a very quick burial and pressure to generate such fossils. But what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? 
First, the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today. 
But Darwin's theory doesn't just need fossils. It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. If we count all the fossils that have been claimed to be transitions from apes to humans, we would still have VERY few. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils. 
The number of fossils alone are giving evolution major headaches, and this is without trying to actually link the fossils. Anybody can line up fossils in whatever order he wants, but that does not demonstrate common ancestry. A fossil by itself can tell you one thing and one thing only: it died. A number of fossils will tell you that a number of creatures died. The numbers don't lie. Evolution did not happen.

Today's guest blogger is Charlie Wolcott, a certified math and physics teacher with a degree in Computer Science. In addition to the sport of fencing, he has been involved in the evolution/creation debate for about 12 years and believes that Young Earth Creationism is the best model that fits the data.

The one thing Darwin feared the most about his theory of evolution lies in the earth: fossils. He knew that unless the transitions between the kinds were found, his theory would fall apart. Today, more than 150 years later, what do we find? An extreme lack of transition fossils. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. I agree. It takes a natural disaster such as a volcanic eruption, or perhaps an earthquake or a Flood to produce a very quick burial and pressure to generate such fossils. But what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? 

First, the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today. 

But Darwin's theory doesn't just need fossils. It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. If we count all the fossils that have been claimed to be transitions from apes to humans, we would still have VERY few. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils. 

The number of fossils alone are giving evolution major headaches, and this is without trying to actually link the fossils. Anybody can line up fossils in whatever order he wants, but that does not demonstrate common ancestry. A fossil by itself can tell you one thing and one thing only: it died. A number of fossils will tell you that a number of creatures died. The numbers don't lie. Evolution did not happen.

 

Comments

Evolution as a theory has headaches - especially for any scientists still interested in truth - but evolution as a propaganda tool has a MONOPOLY.

I have to admit that for most of my Christian life I have wondered how the Earth and the universe could be only 6,000-7,000 years old. Everything I kept hearing from those believing in and promoting the theory of evolution made so much sense! So I began to think possibly a "day" to God was actually (or could actually be) a billion years. I'm now convinced that non-believing evolutionists have been telling some pretty tall tales - lies, if you will - backed by very weak "proof" that they make sound so plausible! It now amazes me that evolutionists can believe (or want US to believe) that life came from lifelessness. When they discover a "new" insect or other previously unknown creature, they want us to believe it just popped up out of nowhere or it somehow "evolved," yet they can show NO proof of this, EVER! And the best argument against their beliefs is the fact that they have NO transitional fossils to back up those beliefs. I'm convinced it is all simply a huge effort to deny God and His Son. Thank you, Creation Moments, for all that you do!

Belief in "millions" of years is substantiated only by propaganda. We have written historical records that confirm the age of the earth to be thousands of years. There is nothing — no eye witness account, no evidence, only conjecture — to support the earth's even being here millions of years ago, let alone supporting life. I don't care about the scientific talk. Talk is cheap. All evolutionary scientists are doing is interpreting the evidence without written historical records to back them up. Interpretation of data does not count as evidence. Anyone can insist on interpreting facts in a way that goes against reality. But to actually substantiate evidence, you need to have eye-witness accounts. You need to have written historical records. Evolutionists have none, because there is nothing behind their beliefs but a desire to deny God. Basically, if you insist on being foolish enough to think there is no divine authority, you will have to put forth fiction as fact. But you cannot actually change facts by merely altering people's opinions. Evidence is plentiful enough of design ... so plentiful, in fact, that Richard Dawkins frequently has to correct evolutionists who accidentally admit there is design and tell them that it is only an "appearance" of design.

We have historical written records that go back 6,000 years. Beyond that, you're getting into conjecture, unless you can get personal, first-hand, eye-witness testimony. Evolutionists will never have it, because their theory is just conjecture justified by speculation.

If you take the Holy Bible as the inerrant and eternal word of God and read it literally (as it should be read) it is clear that the earth and all of creation is young -- 6000 to 7000 years old. This conclusion can be drawn by analysis of the genealogies as presented in the Holy Bible.

Since the Bible is inerrant it follows that Noah's Flood was an historical event and global in nature. "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Pet 3:6) All sedimentary layers and all fossils (with very few possible exceptions from more recent, extremely localized catastrophic sudden burials) are a result of the great Flood. So the fossil record is an incomplete snapshot of life that existed at the time of the flood (incomplete in that not all life forms were fossilized, though representatives of all "kinds" probably were).

Since the fossil record is actually a snapshot it is not surprising that transitional species are not present. Obviously, transitional species would be fewer in number and less likely to be fossilized and subsequently discovered. This would be a great explanation that evolutionists could use in explaining why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record except that they would have to concede that the fossil record was the result of a global catyclysm like the Flood. And of course, admitting that would undermine their belief in uniformitarianism and millions of years. It is a strong argument in favor of special creation by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent personal God. Thank you, Jesus, for your eternal Word!

This is what's known as a strawman argument; using one highly contentious proposition as proof of another. Your whole argument rests on the premise outlined in your first sentence: "If you take the Holy Bible as the inerrant and eternal word of God and read it literally". Many people, myself included, regard the bible as nothing more than a bunch of fairy stories made up to scare the ignorant. The bible is nothing more than a work of complete fiction, albeit an extremely successful one.

Carbon dating of fossils is routine. And carbon dating shows that fossils recovered are orders of magnitudes older than 7000 years - unless, that is, you think carbon dating is fake science. Carbon dating has shown fossils to be as old as 3.4 billion years, and as young as 10,000 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil]. Even allowing for some discrepancy in the carbon dating process, that's a rather large period over which to have had a flood. Scientists and critical thinkers discounted the notion that all fossils came from the flood many years ago. Da Vinci questioned it, 350 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. In fact, there's hardly a credible scientist around who believes there ever was a global flood of the kind described in the bible. It's nonsense.

You're the one with the weak argument. You have no evidence to present. All you have is interpretation. As far as being contentious goes, it doesn't get much more contentious than denying there is a God. And some day you will find that you are not the god of your own universe, nor will your pride and arrogance help you, for you are without a God and a Savior by your own choice.

A strawman argument is presenting an argument as being the other person's position (but is not) that can be easily defeated, that is, knocked down like so much straw. What you refer to in the blog post is thus not a strawman.

Carbon dating of fossils actually shows that the fossils cannot possibly be millions of years old. C-14 decays away in only a few thousand years. Thus any once-living matter buried in the ground for millions of years should long since have had all its C-14 decay away. The presence of C-14 in all fossils tested so far proves all of them had to have been buried no more than a few thousand years ago.

Carbon dating does not test to 3.4 billion years. This is radiometric dating, employing the decay of other radioactive elements. However, fossils cannot be dated in this way. These methods' date results are supposed to give us the date at which volcanic deposits cooled and solidified. Bones and other organic matter, of course, burns up completely in lava, so none would remain to be tested. Thus, it is only the fossils in sedimentary layers above or below a volcanic layer which can be dated comparatively with the supposed date of the volcanic layer.

>>Carbon dating has shown fossils to be as old as 3.4 billion years, and as young as 10,000 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil]. Even allowing for some discrepancy in the carbon dating proccess.<<

Hum, "some discrepancy"?

So many times when we make bold statements such as you have made, it shows up later that the facts don't follow what we have decided in our minds to be true.

Example: "carbon dating" doesn't date anything up to 3.4 billion years old. Carbon 14 has a radioactive 1/2 life of around 5600 to 5800 years. (depending on who you believe). Anything past 40,000 to 60,000 years is an extreme stretch. Some think the 40,000 to 60,000 an outward limit.

What else that may interest you is that carbon dating is the only dating method that can date what was previously alive. The only dating method that can go back that far is Radio metric dating. And only volcanic rocks can be dated to this extreme.

And to another of your points, tired as it may be, your contention:

>>Scientists and critical thinkers discounted the notion that all fossils came from the flood many years ago. Da Vinci questioned it, 350 years before Darwin published Origin of Species. In fact, there's hardly a credible scientist around who believes there ever was a global flood of the kind described in the bible. It's nonsense.<<

You batch all "scientists" into the same little mold, then you batch all people that believe in the bible as "regard the bible as nothing more than a bunch of fairy stories made up to scare the ignorant."

If you even take a minimal examination of history you will find that people such as Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and many current "scientists" as believers in God. Even Einstein indicated that the "god" idea as one that is of important consideration based on what we observe about our surroundings.

And your comments about the flood are shortsighted. Rather than pin your hopes of biblical knowledge of the speculated "hardly credible scientist" why not look into the evidence yourself rather than just parrot what you think might be the case.

When actually examining both sides of this argument you will find that a large number of "scientists" that don't think that Darwin's idea of the reason for the variety of life is a reasonable argument given what we now know. You must remember that when Darwin made his hypothesis known to the public with his book, the common idea of the cell was of a simple batch of protoplasm.

Oh how far that basis of thought is now that we have advanced knowledge of the cell.

The only reason that the idea of long ages have come about, and the start of which was 15 hundred to two thousand years prior to Darwin's assertion, was due to reaction of the biblical narative.

At that point they considered and later came to the firm conclusion that the universe was static and eternal. But when Hubble "looked" through his telescope in 1929 all that changed. The most important discovery of all time, the fact that the universe is in fact expanding and that it had a beginning, is now considered to be fact. So, my friend, facts change over time, and "scientist" opinion does as well.

So don't rest so assuredly and arrogantly on what you call "science". It is like all other efforts of man, flawed by our observation point. We can only observe results of past events and try and interpret them. That interpretation comes with bias developed from our world view. And maybe from an archeologist's point of having to make payroll and pleasing those that are funding his research.

Consider what Charles Wolcott said about the coverup of the the fossil evidence that he discovered in the British Columbia shale deposits. These clearly showed every body form present all in the same cambrian layer. "The cambrian explosion" as it has now come to be known. While Wolcott wasn't a "scientist" he was indoctrinated into a certain view point. And if fossils that show clearly different conclusions, then those fossils must be excluded from consideration. The cover up lasted for 80 years before those "findings" were what is now called "reinterpreted" better described as "rediscovered". The "scientific" community passed along the diatribe that this long age non-sense was final truth.

But what was the actual case? The then leader of the Smithsonian institute was covering up evidence because it didn't fit the accepted view.

Your comments on "fairy" tales is the same cover up.

The Bible is an accurate historical document that IS backed up by archeology. If you spent just a little time in research you would realize that and revise your thinking.

Archeology is the science of examining the evidence left behind by prior cultures. When examined to determine the actual history that the Bible comments on, it is a flawless historical record of what is stated.

Archeology has no clear evidence of any "transitional" forms that Darwin said would have to be present. The few examples that are present are either 100% ape, 100% human or an outright fraud/mistake.

Better to be considered a fool, than to open ones mouth and confirm the fact.

Till the Trumpet sounds

One small correction. They use various forms of radiometric dating, but not carbon dating for millions of years since Carbon dating isn't accurate past 10,000 if I recall correctly. The other forms have been shown to be accurate though.

Now I know a creationalist will bring up radiometric dating on volcanic rock in which we know the actual age of,being 20 - 60 years and it dates back millions of billions. There is a very simple explanation for this. The rocks were formed from magma (molten rock). That molten rock is millions of billions of years old.

Of course creationist also tend to gloss over or deny the fact that there are a lot of transitional fossils found (although on a technical level all fossils are, but that's often confusing to creationists so I don't bother bringing that up until I know they have at least an understanding of evolution).

Apparently you do not know or understand carbon dating and the assumptions made. Like the starting amount, atmospheric amount, etc. Do more research before you start claiming what the populous is saying. God gave you a brain use it to decern and understand.

Note that they only depict upright dinosaurs growing feathers on their forearms.
The rodent to bat transition would be a monstrosity, for sure, and none of the intermediate forms (of which they have found absolutely zero) would convey any competitive advantage to the creature worth inheriting.
Not to mention, why would longer digits and webbing between them be any kind of advantage at all? They would be disadvantages, and this doesn't even begin to touch on the musculature and skeletal changes which would have to take place in order to make a land animal aerodynamically capable.
They never depict transitional forms from land insects to flying insects, and there are no fossil transitional forms of the ancestors of the flying reptiles, either.

Have you ever heard of the flying squirrel? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel</a>
Also, feathers are a great form of insulation and temperature regulation, that might be why some dinosaurs had them.

---
"There are in truth three states of the converted: the beginning, the middle, and the perfection. In the beginning, they experience the charms of sweetness; in the middle, the contests of temptation; and in the end, the fullness of perfection."

Pope St. Gregory the Great
---

Excellent analysis -- we need more forensic science analysts who think like you, sir! And, to put your analysis in forensic science logic terms, you have made a winning case for Biblical earth history based upon "the evidence of nothing" -- as I explained in <a href="http://www.icr.org/article/3763" title="www.icr.org/article/3763">www.icr.org/article/3763</a> . ><> JJSJ

Yes! Finally someone writes about CPA Evolution Review.

I don't know much but I know how to google.

<a href="http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/no-transitional-fossils.html" title="http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/no-transitional-fossils.html">http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/no-transitional-fossils.html</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" title="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>

I could have spent hours copying and pasting hundreds of examples, but I have learnt not to expend too much time on creationists, as they refuse to see what is in front of them. Here is the Google search go look for yourselves (If you dare!!!)

<a href="https://www.google.ie/" title="https://www.google.ie/">https://www.google.ie/</a>

Hope this helps with your quest for "transitional fosssils"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils</a>

Just because you choose to ignore the evidence does not mean there is none. The fossil record is extensive and creationist have now to fall on ignorance as their last line of defense. Quite pitiful and indicative of a dying belief system.

What does the extensive fossil record show? It shows distinct lifeforms, as in the "Cambrian" record. It does not show transitional forms. You are the one choosing to ignore the evidence.

Evolutionists don't need transitional fossils to support their theory. That's because they simply take fossils and reinterpret them to "fit" their theory. No matter what the fossil indicates — and it will show that lifeforms have remained true to kind throughout the history of the earth — an evolutionist simply re-qualifies the evidence and fashions it into something that will "fit." Thus we have a pig's tooth being hailed as evidence of a transitional human. Anything can be transitional. That's where all the so-called evidence comes from to support evolution. It comes from reinterpreting data in ways that don't fit the evidence. Therefore you can have "overwhelming" evidence for evolution (which evolutionists claim to have) when it's actually misinterpreted data that goes against the theory and has been "retooled" to "fit" a preconceived notion: that there is no God. Surely if you insist on denying that each thing reproduces after its kind, you will have to grasp at straws, since there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to support your stance other than a desire to be top dog instead of answering to divine authority.

What transitional fossils would suffice? How about Basilosaurus? Proof whales walked on land. Or Sinosauropteryx? Proof Dinosaurs had feathers! Tiktaalik, first tetrapot... evolution of limbs. Thrinaxodon, intermediate between Synapsids and Mammals. I can go on like this forever and ever and ever. We have the fossils, you just ignore them! And what do you mean by "Kinds" how do you define a bird or a deer or a cat? If fossils won't do how about modern examples? Let's do Deer as just one...

Deer is a generalized term but... "in general" Deer are part of the Family Cervidae which also includes Elk, Moose, Caribou and actual Deer.
Which are all part of the infraorder Pecora which also includes Antilocapridae which encompasses various Pronghorn. Pecora also includes Sheep, Goats, Antelope and Cattle in the family Bovidae. Believe it or not Giraffes are also a part of the Pecora infraorder. Which actually starts to make more sense when you realize that all of this is part of the Order Artiodactyla which includes Camelidae. So Camels, Lamas and Alpaca are also related to Deer, but even then you have to admit they more closely resemble the Giraffe.

All this seems pretty reasonable here so far, right? Well then it's time to mix things up a bit...

See, now we also have to include Suidae on this list which includes Pigs, Swine and Boar... which still isn't that far fetched when you think about it. But now that we've included pigs we also have to include another group... Cetancodonta. Which includes Hippos... and, Whales, Dolphins etc.. So far we've based everything on a superficial trait that everything on this list has now or has had at some point in their history grouping them all together under the heading "Even-toed ungulates" or Artiodactyla.

Artiodactyla is part of the part of the infraclass Eutheria which also includes Perissodactyla or "Odd-toed ungulates" which includes Equidae (Horses), Tapirs and Rhinos.

Manatees are also part of Eutheria and with them on the list you can start to see why it's okay to also have Hippos and Whales. Which also means we can finally include Elephants because they're Eutherial too. They're actually part of a Suborder called Afrotheria that in addition to Manatees also includes the Aardvark. Now that seems a lot more out of place than whales lol. But a sister group to Afrotheria is Xenarthra which includes Sloths and Anteaters and also Armadillos so having the Aardvark kind of makes sense now.

WTH, this is really starting to run on, isn't it!

But Eutheria (Placentals) is a very, very broad Class and really a lot of things are included. Actually it kind of goes forever and will eventually let me put Dogs, Cats and even Humans on the list. If I run out of things to name I can always move up a tier into Theria and then over and down into Marsupials. Which still isn't extent enough to include everything because we haven't considered Prototheria yet. Which now lets us add Echidnas and the Platypus. And all of everything I've named do far is a Mammal!

I'm going to stop here because the next tier up is the Class of Synapsids... which is even more extensive!

And you know what? We can also prove every single bit of this with DNA! The same DNA that shows how you're related to your parents and how they're related to your kids. And it's because of skeptics that we don't just have one test either... we have several! We test the molecules, DNA, RNA, proteins and so on. AND GUESS WHAT! ... every single test we preform has one thing in common... it tells us that everything on earth is related to everything else, the mutation rates and how long it's been since we've had a common ancestor.

But guess what else? You choose to ignore that too. In fact the only possible way in the universe you can continue to claim that there's no EVIDENCE is by continuing to dismiss everything ever presented under superficial claims of how it doesn't fit your criteria, which you also conveniently neglected to define!

So, I ask again... if this isn't enough, what would be?

Arranging various organisms according to similarities of traits only proves humans have enough intelligence to arrange various organisms according to similarities of traits. It does not prove the arrangement is true, nor does it prove a common ancestry between the various forms. You claim DNA has proven the common ancestry arrangement. Please show me where they have done DNA comparisons on dinosaurs and other organisms only available to us in the present in the form of fossils. Of course it is considered impossible for DNA to survive millions of years, and so your claim of DNA confirmation is an interpretation of comparisons of DNA from various organisms alive today, which is circular reasoning and so not at all independent as you claim.

Whales walking on land? Really? You have a fossil of what LOOKS like potential for limbs but absolutely no evidence of it actually doing so. So that one as 'proof' is out. Dino's with bird feathers. You found that on an artist's depiction? Yeah, real science. You really think cologin fibers are actually proto-feathers? That my friend is known as science fiction. You also failed to notice that even if all these were transitionals, you need a whole bunch more to make the theory work. You can list one fossil here, one fossil there. Those are sketchy at best. You need hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Evolutionists are famous for saying that it works on populations, not individuals. Yet when it comes to transitional fossils you only have individuals. Anyone can line up a pile of bones and say what they want about it. It doesn't mean a thing other than someone can line up a pile of bones.

A 'kind' would be close to a 'family' but if you try to apply the modern classification system to the Biblical classification system you are going to run into problems. And what we actually do observe is not a 'gain of genetic information' but a continual loss of genetic information.

DNA is one of evolution's worst enemies. It has information. The Law of Information is quite clear that it must come from an intelligent mind. Humans are 98% similar to chimps on the protein making parts of DNA. Got news for you. That's only 2% of the chain. If you want to claim 98% similarity, it needs to be 98% similarity throughout the whole thing. It is not. If you have the DNA that demonstrates dino evolution, you shoot yourself in the foot because DNA does not last more than 10,000 year regardless of preservation method.

What would convince me of transitions? Observation of evolution BETWEEN kinds. We only have observation of variation WITHIN kinds. Everything is imagination with no proof. Those fossils you claim to be evidence for evolution are the same fossils we use for Noah's Global Flood.

You need to learn where science starts and where it stops. It's clear you do not know the difference and with how the education system tends to work, I don't blame you. Bill Nye the "science master" just proved in his video against Creationism proved he doesn't know where it starts and where it stops. You need to learn what empirical evidence actually is and apply it to your own theory as you apply it to ours. If you hold your own theory to the scrutiny you hold to ours, you will find yours falls apart very quickly. I've seen the evidence for the transitional fossils. What is there is greatly lacking in demonstrating that they are legit transitional fossils and what is necessary for evolution to be true is simply not there.

There, you've done it again. You haven't even looked up the examples I gave and there you've put your foot in your mouth. As it turns out we have found many species of Dinosaurs with feathers. You would do well to do the research next time ;) .

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur</a>

And you're right, absolutely about arranging bones and interpreting what ever you want. I agree that's how things were done 80-100 years ago... some were even broken to fit. But that's not acceptable anymore. Every bit of paleontology is peer reviewed now and scrutinized. Fakers are outed and made example of by their own colleagues. It's rare to simply interpret what you want to see anymore... you have to prove why you believe it to be so... or you'll lose credibility! And credibility is everything when you're a scientist. That's why we have what's called "Disclosure". It's so that other Scientists can repeat your experiments. That way if there are errors, they'll be found by someone else and again, you'll be outed and lose credibility! I wish it was as easy as just being able to say what ever you want, but it's not... see in real science there's always someone out there trying to prove you wrong.

DNA is actually our best friend by the way... see you forget things like Endogenous retroviruses and Pseudogenes, just two more examples of how we use DNA testing aside from the four I already provided. A quick read would do you well. See, since DNA testing so often meets with so much skepticism we've developed half a dozen different tests to confirm what one or more might not be covering. See, we have every door covered because when someone goes and says "Yeah, but the proteins prove nothing..." then we can still say "but yeah, we tested the ribosomal RNA too and guess what?!". See, you assume we only do one test per sample... but we don't! Each sample is subjected to a battery of tests.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent</a>

And you can't have Evolution between kinds! You just proved you don't know anything about how evolution works. Again, research is key.

Evolution is modification via common decent.

A slightly longer version is that in order for an animal to have a significant influence over evolution it must produce at least two or more offspring who each must produce at least two or more offspring and so on. If the specific mutations of an animal are passed on with enough succession to distinctly differentiate the new emerging population bearing that trait unique to it's own also distinct geographical habitat or breading habits then it can be defined as a subspecies. If that population continues to diverge such that it is chemically infertile with the population with which it diverged and to any sister population then it will be categorized as it's own species. Over time these species might also become physically unique such that they are physically and therefore noticeably different from other related species.

See, a mammal will never have Feathered Wings because evolution doesn't allow that. A population can only build on the traits of it ancestors. See, another good way to explain it is "Variable proportion and modification compiled upon successive tiers of common decent". Which is why Birds are still Tetrapods!

And you still haven't told me what a "Kind" is or why the fossil record doesn't reflect any of you "Kinds". If it were open to interpretation your "Kinds" should be obvious in the fossil record, so where are they?

One last thing on DNA... you mentioned a gain of genetic information... 99% of the human genome is waste and does nothing accounting for only 1% that actually does anything. A puffer fish has no junk DNA at all... every bit is useful... and a grain of rice, just one grain, actually has more "Genetic Information" than the whole of your entire human body. So where is it written that genetic information had to be added to evolve new species? Again, Modification via Common Decent!

You can't get something new in evolution with out first modifying what you already have.

Just something I happened to notice: your only cited source is Wikipedia. Anyone can add stuff to Wikipedia and call it fact. They don't even let students use Wikipedia to do research. Some people I know put false information on that website for a prank. Wikipedia is absolutely not fact. Sure, some people might be honest on that website, but it is still not a credible source. You said "research is key". Research should be done on websites that don't have false information on them. Also, pictures can be photoshopped. I just wanted to point that out. I'll be praying for you.

Yeah, um, what is a "kind"? Biblical language does not is not used in science. There is no such thing. Please define? Also, Chimpanze DNA is 98% common. The whole thing. The 2% lies is 12 and 13 which are fused in our DNA.

Both Charlie and Steve are intellectually dishonest and yes this is a strawman. I will show you how easy it is to know down.

First you go on to say,"the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon." But then you go on to say, "However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived."

How do you go from they are hard to come by and then in your next "breath' state that the lack of fossil history is denies evolution. Wow! Lmbo. What is worse is that you don't explain why there is a lack hominid fossils. Let's give you guys a real science lesson.

Out of the fossil record we have, 95% is marine life
approx. 5% is algae and plant life
approx 0.025% is mammilan in nature.

Let's look at this. If a lion drops dead to the ground what happens to it? It decays or is eaten. Very rarely is it covered in mud with the proper minerals needed to fossilize. But then you already know this because you yourselves have stated that fossilization is a very rare event.

The second part that is dishonest, although you are absolutely correct in your ignorance is when you stated, "Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud" What makes you correct with this statement although the context is wrong is that every hominid fossil you would find would be 100% the animal that it is. Are you still looking for your imaginary croc-a-duck? What you fail to realize is that all fossils are transition fossils.

You are correct on another thing. Fossil records to not demonstarte common ancestry by themselves. The nail in the coffin of creationism is DNA coupled with our fossil record. Really, there is no longer a debate silly theist.

Evolution is a fact.

One thing I've learned from these debates is that neither side is going to budge from their faith...and yes both beliefs involve faith because neither can be proven beyond the other side's doubt. Although it does appear that many more evolution scientists are beginning to question the ToE as the evidence just doesn't support it. I understand the ToE's position regarding common ancestry but the fossil evidence simply shows fish, reptiles, birds, apes, humans etc. all according to its own kind and according to what we now see presently. I'm sure there are many species that are now extinct that look different than any creatures alive today, but each can still be classified by its kind. I've researched some of the transitional fossils and there's always an explanation, and any complete fossil evidence I've seen clearly looks like a present day species...fish, lizard, snake, etc. There simply is no support for macro evolution.

This just goes to show how little you actually know about Evolution and that you've gone to absolutely no effort to research it. Did you even read the comments above? And if there's no evolution then why do we see these different kinds appearing chronologically in different periods of Earth's history? Why is it that for 80% of the history of life organisms were microscopic? Then we see Sponges < cnidarians < chordates < tetrapods < reptiles < mammals and birds, in that order. Why don't they appear at the same time? Why is it that we can reenforce the theory of evolution with actual evidence like genetics? Why then is it that when we see physical relationships we can prove those relationships as being hereditary via common descent through DNA, Endogenes, Retroviruses, Molecules like Proteins and so on?

So no, it's not "Faith"... it's science which has nothing to do with faith and has only ever been impeded by faith. Science only works after we take our faith out of the equation. The truth is that there is very real evidence to support Evolution... volumes of it, spanning over 150 years of scientific discovery.

If you want to know what happens when we allow "faith" into the laboratory see Richard Owen. A brilliant scientist who however put religion above scientific discovery and was even caught lying amidst other scientist in Peer Review, claiming that Humans have structures of the brain that are not found in other great apes.

R. Owen was the founder of the British Museum (Natural History) in London among other things.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen</a>

Nathan Miller,

Why do evolutionist have to rely on horizontal gene transfer to explain anomolies in DNA from different organizms? Have you heard of orphan genes? Can you point to any mutation that is an increase in information or function? R. Dawkins could not. Yet we know of thousands of genetic defects.

Carbon 14 is found in fossils that should have none. See Paul Giem's research.

Do you believe DNA and other original tissue has lasted for 68 million years in Dinosaurs? If you do, who is believing fairy tales?

Any actual progress on OOL research, or just lots of speculation?

Do you understand the arguments of specified complexity and irreducibly complex systems?

Are you aware of all the arguments for, and claims of evolution that have had to be discarded? Embryonic recapitulation, sicklecell anemia etc. Gould made an excuse for the fossil record with punctuated equilibrum. Is that one still valid in your opinion? I suspect he knew more about fossils than you ever will.

Did you know that Pi and Euler's Number are in the Bible? Did you know that Chinese pictographs contain ideas that have come from the Bible? Do you know that several kings in Europe have lines that go back to Noah? Are you aware of the hundreds of flood legends?

I am a skeptic and my belief in a Creator and the Book he gave to us is due mostly to evidence. You believe in a religious myth.

Why is everyone using Wikipedia? That's not real research; it's grade school research.

"A fossil by itself can tell you one thing and one thing only: it died."

This officially ranks among the most destructive pages on the Internet. B******t and lies like this should be illegal. How are you a functioning, conscious being? How are you so evolved yet so primitive? Your ignorance is so blatant I honestly wonder if this page is fake. With minds as closed as yours I'm surprised your brain gets enough oxygen to survive.

Wake up. Wake the **** up.

By all means. Tell me what other facts you can get from a pile of bones. Oh, and don't give me made up fairy tales. It's all I've gotten from every Evolution textbook, museum display, TV show etc. I can tell the difference between observable fact and fantasy stories. Can you? I won't hold my breath.

You are too stupid to be a teacher.

Good thing I'm not held to your ideals of what constitutes a good teacher. If you think I'm too stupid to be a teacher I pity any student who would have to endure who you think would be a good one.