Quote:

What was the problem with the transitional fossils that were brought up here? The Tiktaalik and the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.



What was the proof that it was in transition? It had fins that could flex? As I recall the fins of a coelacanth leds us to believe it was in transition. Oh wait, that one has been in stasis for about 100 million years or more. Hm.

This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know. They haven't given birth to anything but mudskippers. Based on arbitrary and highly subjective classifications we could call these transitional. However, besides arbitrary classification, there's no reason to think mudskippers have, or will transition. But we should somehow assume that these creatures, which we only observe three partial skeletons of, gave birth to something besides the exact same creature. That's kind of a big leap of faith.

This creature is in transition, only if you assume that creatures do transition. Even then, we could only know that it transitioned, if we already know that creatures do transition. There's no evidence that it would otherwise, but the only reason you guys say we have to believe creatures do transition is because of the fossil record. That's getting kind of close to a tautology.

Quote:

the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.



The two legged snake would only prove that animals could lose limbs, at best. You don't explain how animals got legs by saying they lost them. I guess there's the chance its in transition. Transition into something less than it was. Perhaps a true transitional fossil snake would show a lizard with a mostly normal skeletal structure, but with some snake like attributes. The only problem with that, is that nature would never select for such a creature. It would be rediculous to even think that a lizard would become a snake in the first place. At what point in being half lizard, half snake, would it be more adapted than just being a plain old lizard? In fact, the slow, bit by bit process makes it seem all but impossible.

Although, based on the evidence at hand, I could just say these snakes went extinct in their two legged form, without giving birth to any kids. My claim would be just as substantial. It just wouldn't be taken as seriously because it ignores evolution.

You can claim I lack imagination, but lizards move well because they're designed like lizards. It would be a burden extra ribs and body length, while still generally being a four legged lizard if you otherwise had a good way to move about.

Quote:

This is so not true, and I'm quite sure you haven't met or spoke to any paleontologist nor do you seem to have much knowledge about paleontology at all.



I'm sorry, they found the bones of actual humans. Except some of them were stricken with diseases, or they had smaller skulls than most, or overdeveloped features and they called them all new animals. Or they found highly fragmented skeletons, and added a whole bunch of imagination to get to a whole new animal.

Or someone outright hoaxed a skull and it passed your precious 'peer review' for 50 or so years before someone finally figured out they were lied to.

Quote:

You've misunderstood the observation-part here. He only witnissed natural selection, survival of the fittest and as a result of this he saw speciation around him. He didn't even had a full theory before he witnissed this. By the way, believing in your own theory when evidence shows you are at least on the right track, seems perfectly okey to me.



If Darwin had used a little bit of different reasoning, the evidence he saw would have put him on the right track to creation too. But I don't suppose that matters. Nothing he saw contradicts creation, he just imagined it was evidence for evolution.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/25/06 22:47.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."