The Meaning Of Evolution

[speedz99 145]

When did you guys get the impression that I don't think anything ever changes ever?

You keep saying that you believe in microevolution but not speciation. I guess we're just trying to explain why they are not mutually exclusive terms. What you call microevolution has to lead to speciation at least a small percentage of the time, even based on how you define the word. You know, the wolves/playpus thing we went over. I'm not sure I understand how you still can't believe that evolution is a real phenomenon...even if you want to say that you think God somehow touched the human race to spur consciousness/emotion/etc...even though we would obviously disagree with that and would explain why (for the hundredth time) if you want.

Besides if we define a species as something that can't mate with something else, then most of us would be a different species than beautiful women. And by 'us' I mean 'you guys'. Cause my wife is a hottie

Hey, I've mated with a few hot chicks...I just wasn't dumb enough to marry any of them.ZING!

Hawaii kind of throws a burr in your saddle when you require a long long long long long long time to get species evolving. They popped up out of the ocean a couple million years ago, took a while to cool off, needed time for coconuts to drift to their shores, or birds that pooped seeds, then after all the plants matured they became acceptable to birds and animals that got there via floating logs and such, until the y became new species. I guess evolution sometimes gets a pass on being consistant.

Here, read this and come back to us if you still don't buy the whole "evolution" thing when it comes to Hawaii."Hawaii is one of the best places in the world to study biological evolution."

[Balloon guy 158]

???? We're just pointing out that there are observed instances of speciation, along with a ginormous fossil record which supports the prevailing theories of speciation leading to evolution. If you are going to deny evolution, you have to explain why this explanation:"Mystical all-powerful being created a world that looks *exactly* like it would if evolution were true, in order to confuse us"is a better and/or more scientific explanation than this:"The observable small changes and observable speciation, which can occur in our lifetime, would, over a period of millenia, lead to the changes observed in the fossil record."It's getting hard to tell what your objection to evolution is. Do you deny the observed instance of speciation? Do you deny the fossil record? Do you deny DNA studies? Do you deny the ecological studies showing conditions which lead to speciation making accurate predictions about the changes? I mean, somewhere you have to say "science is lying to us about that" or you just have to admit that no amount of evidence will convince you and that you are not interested in letting facts get in the way of your beliefs.

Well you guys are really confusing. I mean it's like you are demanding I clarify that I know addition.Of course I know certain things, things like adaptation. No one in the world denies that except for House who thinks people don't change. ( He's an athiest too )I do not believe that man evolved from a lower life form. When we see the problems with inbreeding it makes you wonder how a human could survive unless they have been devolving.Nor do I believe that there was once a single 'species' whatever that means, that branched off into all mammals, reptiles, birds, and platypi.I also hold that many of the basic premises of evolution are wishful thinking, under the guise of science. And by science I mean the one where you postulate, recreate, and observe. Until we create a life from non-life, and make a self generating single cell organism, than I think the theory is a leaning more towards not true than true.And I don't buy the Dawkins claim of some weak wanna be life form that was created. If we know how it was done, and can't in a controlled environment, with purpose, plans, know how and reason can't reproduce what randomness did in a hostile environment with huge odd against, then please excuse me for not being a true believer.I do love how you guys have no problem saying that some evolution takes millions of years, others take a generation or two. And yet the best we can do is advanced breeding techniques to get faster horses and milkier cows.Oh and Dolly died. Science boys

[ShakeZuma 585]

lol at science

I like it this way better.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Mmmm...milkier cows.This is a good answer. It always takes a bit of the usual internet flaming and goofing, but we really get into interesting conversations when we get really precise about what we believe and don't, without just throwing ideological labels back and forth.I don't agree with the idea that humans are devolving, but I can at least see where it comes from with a biblical perspective -- they lived 900 years, they apparently inbred without defects (Cain's wife, Lot's daughters), etc. And I can see exactly what your objections to evolution are now. I'll leave it to the sciencier people to debate the points, but I like the threads when everybody gets deep and serious and point-by-point, and then after awhile someone makes a poop reference and it's back to normal again.Amino acids can certainly be created in a petri dish -- pretty easily, as it's been done many different ways and many different times over the past few decades. What sort of "life" do you want to see created? Does it need to be a minimum of a single-cell organism, or would it be enough for the amino acids to join together into strands of proteins and the proteins to clump together? Again, I'll leave the fine points to LLY or somebody, I just want to clarify.Of course we've produced and witnessed variation in species left, right, and sideways -- milkier cows, speckled moths, fruit flies, etc. The amount of time it takes depends mostly on the lifespans of the creatures we're talking about. People take longer than fruit flies. Giant tortoises may have evolved lots, but since they live longer than we do, we'd never know it in the span of one human lifetime, nor can we re-create that evolution in a lab, unless we're talking about a multi-generational lab funded for hundreds of years. LLY makes a good point, that macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution strung together over time.

[speedz99 145]

I don't agree with the idea that humans are devolving.

I don't agree with even saying you don't agree with something that doesn't exist.

[BuffDan 0]

I do love how you guys have no problem saying that some evolution takes millions of years, others take a generation or two. And yet the best we can do is advanced breeding techniques to get faster horses and milkier cows.

I love how people can claim that the sun is a star which is only 93 million miles away from earth, yet there are other stars which are billions of light years away from earth. I mean, which is it, are stars close or far?The simple fact is that some evolution happens over a generation or two, and more evolution happens over millions of years.If you take the kind that happens over a generation or two, and extrapolate it over millions of years, you get more drastic changes. That is what we are trying to tell you, namely that these drastic changes are just small changes happening again and again and again and again...And to echo what Southern Buddhist said, is it really so surprising that the only kinds of changes we can reproduce in a lab are the kinds that can occur in a few generations, seeing as that is the longest amount of time that we currently have had at our disposal? Given a greater amount of time, we can observe greater effects.Given a short amount of time, the only effects we can observe are those that occur in a short amount of time. I tautological statements.

[KramitDaToad 0]

I do love how you guys have no problem saying that some evolution takes millions of years, others take a generation or two. And yet the best we can do is advanced breeding techniques to get faster horses and milkier cows.Oh and Dolly died. Science boys

For the third time I point you to LLY's post. It explains every on-subject objection you have raised. Interesting thing is he wrote it before you raised any of them and yet it explains them all.

I do not believe that man evolved from a lower life form. When we see the problems with inbreeding it makes you wonder how a human could survive unless they have been devolving.Nor do I believe that there was once a single 'species' whatever that means, that branched off into all mammals, reptiles, birds, and platypi.I also hold that many of the basic premises of evolution are wishful thinking, under the guise of science. And by science I mean the one where you postulate, recreate, and observe. Until we create a life from non-life, and make a self generating single cell organism, than I think the theory is a leaning more towards not true than true.And I don't buy the Dawkins claim of some weak wanna be life form that was created. If we know how it was done, and can't in a controlled environment, with purpose, plans, know how and reason can't reproduce what randomness did in a hostile environment with huge odd against, then please excuse me for not being a true believer.

You're also free to believe that clouds are made from marshmallows.You'd be equally wrong but slightly less silly

[hblask 1]

Nor do I believe that there was once a single 'species' whatever that means, that branched off into all mammals, reptiles, birds, and platypi.

OK, I guess that answers my question about which part of science you don't believe in -- the fossil record. As I pointed out, real science makes verifiable predictions. Using the fossil record, scientists can say "We think there should be an intermediate species with characteristics x, y, and z, that is halfway between this pygmy horse that's 1 foot tall and the current horses of today." 40 years later, someone is digging in the mountains of Argentina, and lo and behold, it's the halfway horse (to help naughty horses reintegrate into society?). This type of thing occurs relatively frequently, or at least as frequently as you'd expect based on the rate that unique fossils are found. So in order to say that evolution is NOT taking place, you have to deny that scientists are capable of finding and analyzing fossils. If that is your stance, then, well, ok. They can, but OK. At least I know which part you are in denial about.The other alternative is that God put the fossils in the earth in a manner that is indistinguishable, by any form of science, from evolution, in order to trick us and test our faith. Is that what you believe instead? Or is there some other explanation for the predictive and explanatory power of the fossil record?

[speedz99 145]

As I pointed out, real science makes verifiable predictions. Using the fossil record, scientists can say "We think there should be an intermediate species with characteristics x, y, and z, that is halfway between this pygmy horse that's 1 foot tall and the current horses of today." 40 years later, someone is digging in the mountains of Argentina, and lo and behold, it's the halfway horse (to help naughty horses reintegrate into society?).

The problem with this is that people who are incredibly dense and/or stubborn then say, "I still don't believe it. If this was really the case than there would be fossils between the halfway horse and the current horse. No, sir, I just don't buy it." Then when that fossil is found it's still not good enough.

[Tactical Bear 3]

OK, I guess that answers my question about which part of science you don't believe in -- the fossil record. As I pointed out, real science makes verifiable predictions. Using the fossil record, scientists can say "We think there should be an intermediate species with characteristics x, y, and z, that is halfway between this pygmy horse that's 1 foot tall and the current horses of today." 40 years later, someone is digging in the mountains of Argentina, and lo and behold, it's the halfway horse (to help naughty horses reintegrate into society?). This type of thing occurs relatively frequently, or at least as frequently as you'd expect based on the rate that unique fossils are found. So in order to say that evolution is NOT taking place, you have to deny that scientists are capable of finding and analyzing fossils. If that is your stance, then, well, ok. They can, but OK. At least I know which part you are in denial about.The other alternative is that God put the fossils in the earth in a manner that is indistinguishable, by any form of science, from evolution, in order to trick us and test our faith. Is that what you believe instead? Or is there some other explanation for the predictive and explanatory power of the fossil record?

I've been reading this thread, and Balloon Guy is having fun being all "I don't believe x y and z, but not for any real reason, but because it seems pretty... stupid," so I'm not going to get involved. 90% of the arguments are tautologies or begged questions, and I'd just get frustrated with BG's passive aggressive (FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS!!) crap.But that bolded comment is pretty funny.

[BuffDan 0]

Incidentally, if one does not believed that the same mechanisms that allow for small-scale evolution also allow for large-scale evolution, and wants to see evidence for macro-evolution, I found this website (which no doubt is well known to many; I had come across it before but I had not seen this particular section until now):29 + Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIt also gets rid of that pesky myth that evolution, and in particular universal common descent, is not testable, as it gives many examples of predictions that were made and confirmed, as well as plenty of ways it could be falsified. So, enjoy.

[Balloon guy 158]

I've been reading this thread, and Balloon Guy is having fun being all "I don't believe x y and z, but not for any real reason, but because it seems pretty... stupid," so I'm not going to get involved. 90% of the arguments are tautologies or begged questions, and I'd just get frustrated with BG's passive aggressive (FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS!!) crap.But that bolded comment is pretty funny.

Well since you are going to get involved I will not tell you why you are wrong.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Well since you are going to get involved I will not tell you why you are wrong.

Tell me, and I'll act as his proxy.

[All_In 0]

Cockroaches evolve really quick, coem up with a poison, they gro immune, cycle repeats itself.

not sure if it is just a misunderstanding of words, but the cockroaches don't grow immune. the ones that are naturally resistant start to represent a larger % of the total, the ones that are not resistant die.an individual cockroach does not acquire resistance if it did not have it to begin with.

(except in the case of the ape, alligator, shark and coelacanth, which continued many millions of years largely unchanged even though other species were dealing with a changing environment that necessitated change.)

u stated that evolution says we all started from a single-celled organism millions of yrs ago, then say that these animals are largely unchanged for millions of yrs.which is it?btw, they have changed. evolution is not a thought-out process of trying to get to a finishing point. those animals evolved from their ancestors, like we evolved from a common primate ancestor with the chimp.

[Loismustdie 0]

The problem with this is that people who are incredibly dense and/or stubborn then say, "I still don't believe it. If this was really the case than there would be fossils between the halfway horse and the current horse. No, sir, I just don't buy it." Then when that fossil is found it's still not good enough.

I personally think that if I dug long enough with enough manpower looking for a specific thing I would find that thing, doesn't really matter what it is, especially when I have the luxury of not actually finding the thing, but just a percentage of the thing, and people will still regard it as having found that thing. When you think about it given the written record it's much easier to just believe in christianity, Christ death, burial, resurrection, etc. Either one requires a certain amount of faith, only one is preposterous enough to offer percentages of evidence and wish to be taken as fact. At least christianity is honest about it.

[Loismustdie 0]

For the third time I point you to LLY's post. It explains every on-subject objection you have raised. Interesting thing is he wrote it before you raised any of them and yet it explains them all.You're also free to believe that clouds are made from marshmallows.You'd be equally wrong but slightly less silly

I'll suck a **** on the golden gate bridge before I believe clouds are made from marshmallows. Silly.

[hblask 1]

I personally think that if I dug long enough with enough manpower looking for a specific thing I would find that thing, doesn't really matter what it is, especially when I have the luxury of not actually finding the thing, but just a percentage of the thing, and people will still regard it as having found that thing. When you think about it given the written record it's much easier to just believe in christianity, Christ death, burial, resurrection, etc. Either one requires a certain amount of faith, only one is preposterous enough to offer percentages of evidence and wish to be taken as fact. At least christianity is honest about it.

OK, so then find a magical artifact from God. Even a piece will do.You do realize that many, many entire fossils have been found, right? And if you have 80% of something, do you really need that last 20% to convince you that it is a horse and not an alligator?The fossil record is not sparse or mysterious, except in specific places. Overall, it is extremely complete, way more than I, as a layman, would've expected.

[Loismustdie 0]

OK, so then find a magical artifact from God. Even a piece will do.You do realize that many, many entire fossils have been found, right? And if you have 80% of something, do you really need that last 20% to convince you that it is a horse and not an alligator?The fossil record is not sparse or mysterious, except in specific places. Overall, it is extremely complete, way more than I, as a layman, would've expected.

Rarely is the case where 80% is the number, it's usually closer to 10 to 15. There have been "complete" skeletons found (60 to 80 is considered complete), but of what no one really knows. Literally all of them were found to verify a theory, meaning, the imaginative creature had already been drawn, we just found something to match it, at least a certain percentage of something. It's funny how the pictures in the textbooks came waaaaaay before the actual findings. Like I said, look long enough, you will find something. As far as horse/alligator, okay, let's go there. A horse and alligator are not pure conjecture, we can go off what we have now and compare. When the comparison is to nothing, hell, you could literally make anything. But...but.. there is cave drawings. O.k., there is a video of a character on SNL with an arm growing out of it's head, will that be considered a link to a race 2 million years from now? Outside of what was first A, dreamed up and then B, found a percentage of and then built to fit the dream we have nothing.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Rarely is the case where 80% is the number, it's usually closer to 10 to 15. There have been "complete" skeletons found (60 to 80 is considered complete), but of what no one really knows.

Your confusing what you read in popular science publications about 'exciting' fossils like t-rex. Science doesn't work that way. It looks at all the fossils found from the microscopic to the massive to get the complete and accurate picture. The number of complete fossils actually found numbers in the trillions.

Literally all of them were found to verify a theory, meaning, the imaginative creature had already been drawn, we just found something to match it, at least a certain percentage of something. It's funny how the pictures in the textbooks came waaaaaay before the actual findings. Like I said, look long enough, you will find something.

These predictive pictures in the textbooks again are not scientific. Evolutionary scientists are rarely concerned with morphology. When studying fossils (which is one small area of the field) they are more interested in the function of various components of a creature to show transitions over time.You are probably remembering Ambulocetus which was quite a well documented find. It had been predicted that there would be predecessors of whales that lived on the land due the functionality of modern whales current form. ie Fin bones that resembled hands/feet, breathing air from the surface, verticle spines. Biologists cared very little what it would actually look like. They wanted to know how its limbs, ears, spine etc functioned. It was some creationist muppets who put together drawings of the half-way transition between a cow-like creature and a whale ridiculing it and asking why it hadn't been found. It was a little bit embarrassing for them when it was found a few years later and looked coincidently similar to there pictures.Scientists however weren't searching for something that looked like the pictures. They take the various components, like ear-bones etc and find where it fits between older and newer species. It's not like they go 'It looks half cow - half whale we have our answer'. They study dozens of features and functions and all of them must fit to allow a placement in it's domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and finally species. Having done that they could then present Ambulocetus as a predecessor to the whale and enjoy the coincedence of it looking like the creationist picturesYour conspiracy theories over science are quite cute, but all you do is over-simplifiy a process to build a straw man and then knock it down. When the actual processes are looked at, examining the minute level of detail that is investigated and all the alternatives that are considered your ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, is laid bare

[Loismustdie 0]

Your confusing what you read in popular science publications about 'exciting' fossils like t-rex. Science doesn't work that way. It looks at all the fossils found from the microscopic to the massive to get the complete and accurate picture. The number of complete fossils actually found numbers in the trillions.These predictive pictures in the textbooks again are not scientific. Evolutionary scientists are rarely concerned with morphology. When studying fossils (which is one small area of the field) they are more interested in the function of various components of a creature to show transitions over time.You are probably remembering Ambulocetus which was quite a well documented find. It had been predicted that there would be predecessors of whales that lived on the land due the functionality of modern whales current form. ie Fin bones that resembled hands/feet, breathing air from the surface, verticle spines. Biologists cared very little what it would actually look like. They wanted to know how its limbs, ears, spine etc functioned. It was some creationist muppets who put together drawings of the half-way transition between a cow-like creature and a whale ridiculing it and asking why it hadn't been found. It was a little bit embarrassing for them when it was found a few years later and looked coincidently similar to there pictures.Scientists however weren't searching for something that looked like the pictures. They take the various components, like ear-bones etc and find where it fits between older and newer species. It's not like they go 'It looks half cow - half whale we have our answer'. They study dozens of features and functions and all of them must fit to allow a placement in it's domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and finally species. Having done that they could then present Ambulocetus as a predecessor to the whale and enjoy the coincedence of it looking like the creationist picturesYour conspiracy theories over science are quite cute, but all you do is over-simplifiy a process to build a straw man and then knock it down. When the actual processes are looked at, examining the minute level of detail that is investigated and all the alternatives that are considered your ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, is laid bare

Your faith is quite admirable. I applaud you.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Your faith is quite admirable. I applaud you.

nice try - nothing but facts there thoughYou know those pesky little things that make God as likely as the Easter Bunny

[ShakeZuma 585]

I personally think that if I dug long enough with enough manpower looking for a specific thing I would find that thing, doesn't really matter what it is, especially when I have the luxury of not actually finding the thing, but just a percentage of the thing, and people will still regard it as having found that thing. When you think about it given the written record it's much easier to just believe in christianity, Christ death, burial, resurrection, etc. Either one requires a certain amount of faith, only one is preposterous enough to offer percentages of evidence and wish to be taken as fact. At least christianity is honest about it.

yeah I can get behind this. it is kinda silly to believe something when you can only prove within a shadow of a doubt large percentages of it when you can just wholly buy into something with absolutely no proof at all. makes sense.

Rarely is the case where 80% is the number, it's usually closer to 10 to 15. There have been "complete" skeletons found (60 to 80 is considered complete), but of what no one really knows. Literally all of them were found to verify a theory, meaning, the imaginative creature had already been drawn, we just found something to match it, at least a certain percentage of something. It's funny how the pictures in the textbooks came waaaaaay before the actual findings. Like I said, look long enough, you will find something. As far as horse/alligator, okay, let's go there. A horse and alligator are not pure conjecture, we can go off what we have now and compare. When the comparison is to nothing, hell, you could literally make anything. But...but.. there is cave drawings. O.k., there is a video of a character on SNL with an arm growing out of it's head, will that be considered a link to a race 2 million years from now? Outside of what was first A, dreamed up and then B, found a percentage of and then built to fit the dream we have nothing.

soooo... you're saying that, let me get this straight, forming a theory based off of facts, then researching that theory, then finding the evidence to back up that theory is true, is.... silly? I mean... really?

[Loismustdie 0]

nice try - nothing but facts there thoughYou know those pesky little things that make God as likely as the Easter Bunny

Sure. I believe the bible to be full of facts as well. I trust those who wrote it, were not lying. Just as you trust... wait, unless you actually do this research your self, brush off the bones, locate the bones, piece them together, test them the amount of time that it takes to get an accurate read as to when those bones came from, run your data past others and have them run the same tests... do you do all that? No. Why, then, you have faith. Like I said, I could start digging right now and find a Unichaun. It's unicorn, with a wee bit of leprechaun thrown in. It's out there, and the kicker is I wont even have to find the whole thing. I can find a fraction, and then build it. I even know how it ate, where it lived, what point in time it existed. I also know that there certainly wasn't that many, the proof will be that I wont find many. If I get lucky, I will find fractions of a few. This comes down to faith. I put my faith in pieces of information, so do you. You accused me of simplifying earlier... that's only because it's simple. Again, break it down for what it is: #1 Imagination #2 Hunt to prove imagination. #3 Find pieces that resemble imagination. Good enough. Run tests. #4 Tests are accurate within reason.(That's if you accept that swings of millions is acceptable.) Have others test it, more wild swings. This is it!! #5 Put it in a textbook.Of course, if someone uses those same methods to prove, say, the walls of jericho story it's an immediate lie. It must be. So, my attitude towards science is basically this- blow me. You, Mr. Science, are arrogant as ****.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Sure. I believe the bible to be full of facts as well. I trust those who wrote it, were not lying. Just as you trust... wait, unless you actually do this research your self, brush off the bones, locate the bones, piece them together, test them the amount of time that it takes to get an accurate read as to when those bones came from, run your data past others and have them run the same tests... do you do all that? No. Why, then, you have faith.

Tribal myths that can in no way be verified compared to documented, repeatable procedures that have already been replicated countless times by countless individuals and can be done so again by anyone of approximately 6 Billion people walking around today - including even you.How many can verify the events of the Bible to be true? None To compare the 2 is infantile at best.

This comes down to faith. I put my faith in pieces of information, so do you. You accused me of simplifying earlier... that's only because it's simple. Again, break it down for what it is: #1 Imagination #2 Hunt to prove imagination. #3 Find pieces that resemble imagination. Good enough. Run tests. #4 Tests are accurate within reason.(That's if you accept that swings of millions is acceptable.) Have others test it, more wild swings. This is it!! #5 Put it in a textbook.

That you think this is even close to being true is quite amusing. It's a strange little world that you've created for yourself. What is it about the truth that scares you so much?

Of course, if someone uses those same methods to prove, say, the walls of jericho story it's an immediate lie. It must be. So, my attitude towards science is basically this- blow me. You, Mr. Science, are arrogant as ****.

How can you call science arrogant? You have no clue what it is.Your just as bad as BG. He asks for, and is given, a good simple explanation of what evolution is and then he blindly continues on some random rant about his own version of evolution. Now that's arroganceYou guys aren't interested in the truth at all. As long as you get to keep your fairy tales anything goes.

[hblask 1]

Rarely is the case where 80% is the number, it's usually closer to 10 to 15. There have been "complete" skeletons found (60 to 80 is considered complete), but of what no one really knows.

You may be getting confused by thinking that evolution is only about very ancient, dinosaur-like creatures. It includes that, but it is much more. Fossils have been found for all lineages of animals, and some that were apparently evolutionary dead ends.

Literally all of them were found to verify a theory, meaning, the imaginative creature had already been drawn, we just found something to match it, at least a certain percentage of something. It's funny how the pictures in the textbooks came waaaaaay before the actual findings.

This is exactly what we would expect from a correct theory -- a prediction of what other species would exist, and then finding the physical evidence that matches that prediction. A good example, from a link earlier in this thread, is the sea cow (manatee). Evolutionary theory had predicted that manatees evolved from land animals, and that therefore, somewhere in the past, there was an animal that looked like the manatee, except with legs. Now, that's a pretty crazy prediction, right? So if such a fossil were to be found, that would be some pretty solid evidence for the theory that predicted it. Well, such a fossil WAS later found, and it's wasn't 10 or 15%, it was almost the whole thing. According to creationists, such a creature would never exist, because there would be no intermediate animals such as legged manatees.The other thing you need to know about partial fossils is that it's not like some 8 year old found a tooth and drew a mythical creature around it. Right now, with living animals, you could take a tiny bone fragment to a competent biologist in another part of the world, and say "what animal is this from?" And in most cases they could tell you which animal, which part of the world, the age of the animal, etc, etc. This is how studying archeology works. You compare the pieces to the complete examples and say "because of characteristics X, Y, and Z, this has to be a ziggermagill." In some cases, what happens is they find a bone and say "well, based on the shape of the bone, and this ridge here where the muscles attached, and the density at these key points, this bone came from an aquatic animal that was a vegetarian. We don't know what it looked like yet, but it was probably similar to a duck, and was about 1 foot long".Then, as they find more fossils, more details fill in. The thing is, the fossils always fit in the picture. If creationism were true, at some point we'd find something that doesn't belong, something with no evolutionary explanation. You say if you dig long enough, you'll find it. Well, we're waiting. Until then, the weight of evidence points strongly all in one direction.Unless, of course, we fall back to the "God is tricking us to test our faith" explanation. Is that your stance?

As far as horse/alligator, okay, let's go there. A horse and alligator are not pure conjecture, we can go off what we have now and compare. When the comparison is to nothing, hell, you could literally make anything. But...but.. there is cave drawings. O.k., there is a video of a character on SNL with an arm growing out of it's head, will that be considered a link to a race 2 million years from now? Outside of what was first A, dreamed up and then B, found a percentage of and then built to fit the dream we have nothing.

See, but that's the thing -- there is no fossil that is unlike anything else. Just because it doesn't match anything *today* doesn't mean it can't be traced back. The history of birds, for example, have a very predictable and well-documented lineage back to dinosaurs. It's not like there is some jump where there were dinosaurs roaming the earth and then, suddenly, it's all birds and mammals. Can we look at a bird fossil from a hundred years ago and figure out which species it came from? Of course. What about 100 years before that? It will look different from today's birds, but it will match the one from 100 years ago. And 300 years ago? Same idea. We have all the steps back from modern birds back to flying dinosaurs back to flightless dinosaurs. There is no unexplained jump to any conjectured animal, there is a well-documented trail. So I'll ask you the same question I asked BG, which part of the fossil record do you deny?