Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews...ndChannel=10001

[J.S. Mill]

Maybe - maybe not. Sounds like the fossil record you mentioned too. Maybe if evolution were true we would see a sequential progression through the various geological strata, of simple organisms to more complex ones - but of course that hope is dashed to pieces by the actual evidence.

We see increases in complexity where we expect it -- at the very beginning. After a certain point, more "complexity" doesn't help an organism survive much, if at all. That's why we see things like reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes, and apes losing their tails and becoming humans. There's no reason to think that creatures will necessarily get more and more phenotypically complicated as time goes on.

And so it goes with every piece of evidence proferred by neo-Darwinists - the conclusions are always tentative, always subject to further insights, maybe this and perhaps that.

Within certain bounds, sure. But that's the same as in any other science. If you understood science, you'd know that.

Its a fine theory for generalists but when you press for details you find they shift to accomodate some other configuration of the so-called facts. For any given evolutionary forms, just ask for the precursors, and you get either stony silence or a hundred conflicting ideas and conjectures, or you get an apathetic instructor saying, "Dawkins says it so, so its so. " Right.

It's true that paleontologists don't have an unbroken phylogenetic tree up yet, but a) they don't claim to, B) they don't need one to have overwhelming evidence of evolution, and c) the tree they DO have right now works extraordinarily well, and isn't subject to random assembly as you seem to think. Whales can't come before therapsids, flowering plants can't come before ferns, etc. Paleontologists tinker with leaves of the phylogenetic tree, not the main limbs.

I'm going back now, to perch on my phylogenetic tree. It would seem I can perch anywhere - because its open seating.

Err, no. You certainly can't perch anywhere before the first primates appeared, for one.

[littlechild]

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews...ndChannel=10001

Oh, great, another missing link story. Whatever happened to Archaeopteryx?

And in what way does this animal provide evidence that it ever produced any offspring different from itself, enough that those offspring were eventually able to walk on land? And if evolution causes living things to produce ever more complex offspring, why isn't it happening today at a greater rate than ever before? Since there are anywhere from 2 to 10 million species of life on this planet, why don't we see ANY significant new life forms being formed, ANYWHERE?

Remember, similarity doesn't provide evidence of evolution, it only provides evidence of similarity.

And why are today's fish so lazy, they don't even try to walk? I mean, with just a little effort they should be able to lead an entirely different life. Have they no ambition? They are a disgrace to their forefathers, who actually made it to the big time. I guess the random fickle finger of fate failed to fulfill its function.

Here's another quote from the scientific democracy known as the Internet:

Darwin's theory implied not merely that fossil transitionals would be found, but it predicted that a truly complete fossil record would be mostly transitionals. The world's museums should be bursting at the seams with transitional fossils. Instead of transitionals, the fossil record shows completely formed organisms, well adapted to their environmentsâ??just as we find today.

The most logical conclusion is that the so-called missing links were impossible creatures that never existed.

[littlechild]

We see increases in complexity where we expect it -- at the very beginning. After a certain point, more "complexity" doesn't help an organism survive much, if at all. That's why we see things like reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes, and apes losing their tails and becoming humans. There's no reason to think that creatures will necessarily get more and more phenotypically complicated as time goes on.

Within certain bounds, sure. But that's the same as in any other science. If you understood science, you'd know that.

It's true that paleontologists don't have an unbroken phylogenetic tree up yet, but a) they don't claim to, they don't need one to have overwhelming evidence of evolution, and c) the tree they DO have right now works extraordinarily well, and isn't subject to random assembly as you seem to think. Whales can't come before therapsids, flowering plants can't come before ferns, etc. Paleontologists tinker with leaves of the phylogenetic tree, not the main limbs.

Err, no. You certainly can't perch anywhere before the first primates appeared, for one.

So, if survival is the only driving force behind evolution, why did it not stop at the level of cockroaches?

I haven't seen any reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes, and neither have you.

Evolution predicts a completed tree of life, yet with each passing year cladistics gets more and more complex, and there is no resolution in sight. There is no overwhelming evidence of evolution, unless you mean only variation, which is not in dispute here. If you mean speciation, then evolution is a fictin, and any reference to 'overwhelming evidence' doesn't apply and is a mantra you are taught to ape in order to bolster your self in front of a scientific peer review.

Show me "the tree they DO have that works really well" - let's see you put your credibility on the line. There is no "the tree" - they don't even reference "the tree" - because they generate phylogenetic trees all the time and there is no one tree in use - any depiction of geneaological relationships is purely hypothetical.

Explain how you came to the conclusion that paleontologists only tinker with the 'leaves' and not the main limbs - since every phylogenetic tree is hypothetical, and since even the ancestry of every species is hypothetical?

[J.S. Mill]

So, if survival is the only driving force behind evolution, why did it not stop at the level of cockroaches?

When have I said that mere survival is the only driving force behind evolution? Way to vulgarize evolutionary principles.

I haven't seen any reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes, and neither have you.

I don't expect to see any reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes right before my eyes, because that's not what evolutionary theory predicts. I would expect to find it in the fossil record, though. Lo and behold: http://www.wildlifenews.co.uk/articles2000.../march2500a.htm

Evolution predicts a completed tree of life

Huh?

yet with each passing year cladistics gets more and more complex, and there is no resolution in sight.

Again, I haven't heard of any scientists messing around with the major limbs of the evolutionary tree. Please provide evidence of this.

Show me "the tree they DO have that works really well" - let's see you put your credibility on the line. There is no "the tree" - they don't even reference "the tree" - because they generate phylogenetic trees all the time and there is no one tree in use - have you read much in the literature?

Tell you what -- if you find me a phylogenetic tree that looks significantly different from this one (and is accepted as true by a reputable biologist), I'll say that the evidence for evolution by natural selection is not overwhelming. If you fail to find one, then you must say that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Fair?

[littlechild]

When have I said that mere survival is the only driving force behind evolution? Way to vulgarize evolutionary principles.

If you're intellectually honest, that's logical conclusion from your assertion.

I don't expect to see any reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes right before my eyes, because that's not what evolutionary theory predicts. I would expect to find it in the fossil record, though. Lo and behold: http://www.wildlifenews.co.uk/articles2000.../march2500a.htm

Huh?

Again, I haven't heard of any scientists messing around with the major limbs of the evolutionary tree. Please provide evidence of this.

The burden of proof is on you to show us THE TREE you spoke of. And no, the tree of life web project doesn't count. You need to show that scientists have a consensus around one phylogenetic tree, as you lamely asserted in your post.

Tell you what -- if you find me a phylogenetic tree that looks significantly different from this one (and is accepted as true by a reputable biologist), I'll say that the evidence for evolution by natural selection is not overwhelming. If you fail to find one, then you must say that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Fair?

No, I'll tell you what, you show me that scientists agree on only one tree, and explain why the wikipedia itself doesn't show only one tree, but explains how to create phylogenetic trees (note the plural) for yourself. If there were one tree in use, why the need to create more? In fact there are hundreds if not thousands in common use, and if you don't know that, then who am I to disillusion you from your foolishness ?

[littlechild]

We see increases in complexity where we expect it -- at the very beginning. After a certain point, more "complexity" doesn't help an organism survive much, if at all. That's why we see things like reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes, and apes losing their tails and becoming humans. There's no reason to think that creatures will necessarily get more and more phenotypically complicated as time goes on.

So the logical conclusion is, that complexity is only achieved up to the point where survivability is attained. In that case, why did life evolve any further than absolutely necessary to achieve survival? I guess when the facts don't fit your theory, its the facts that are wrong.

[littlechild]

I don't expect to see any reptiles losing their legs and becoming snakes right before my eyes, because that's not what evolutionary theory predicts. I would expect to find it in the fossil record, though. Lo and behold: http://www.wildlifenews.co.uk/articles2000.../march2500a.htm

Wow, this is awesome! You describe a fossil as a snake with legs, and then claim it is a transitionary life form. Then you use it as proof of evolution, even though it may just be a species in and of itself.

As I've already pointed out, neo-Darwinism predicts hundreds of thousands of transitional life forms, and yet you come up with less than a handful, of dubious quality.

I've said it once, and it looks like I have to say it again:

Remember, similarity doesn't provide evidence of evolution, it only provides evidence of similarity.

[LDSMusic483]

No, we don't know that at all. In fact, it's impossible to ever know that something is not true.

Within certain perameters maybe. If someone were to tell me I'm actually dead, I could know with certainty it isn't true.

[J.S. Mill]

If you're intellectually honest, that's logical conclusion from your assertion.

Incorrect.

The burden of proof is on you to show us THE TREE you spoke of. And no, the tree of life web project doesn't count. You need to show that scientists have a consensus around one phylogenetic tree, as you lamely asserted in your post.

Scientists have a consensus around a general phylogenetic tree. The only disputations among scientists are about leaves, not branches.

No, I'll tell you what, you show me that scientists agree on only one tree, and explain why the wikipedia itself doesn't show only one tree, but explains how to create phylogenetic trees (note the plural) for yourself.

I can create a phylogenetic tree of one phyla, then another phylogenetic tree of a different kingdom, then another phylogenetic tree of my own human family, without being inconsistent even with myself (even around the leaves). Multiple trees does not imply disagreement. Furthermore, disagreement about the leaves of the "phylogenetic tree of life" does not imply substantial disagreement over evolutionary history. Again, I challenge you to find a "phylogenetic tree of life" in which the major branches differ from those in the example I posted. Put up or shut up.

[J.S. Mill]

So the logical conclusion is, that complexity is only achieved up to the point where survivability is attained. In that case, why did life evolve any further than absolutely necessary to achieve survival?

You assume a bizarre homogeneity of fitness, when in fact there are millions of different niches that plants and animals exploit. Different organisms evolve at different times, at different rates, and as a response to different stimuli. That should explain any quandaries you claim to have found here.

[Stargazer]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Sounds great! But there is actually no way to tell scientifically whether or not God created Adam in the first place or he evolved from lower orders. God has stayed behind the curtains very well on that one. Either way, I'm OK with it. Same with the Flood. I am not one of those who tries to reconcile rigorous scientific evidence with what God told Moses to write down.

[littlechild]

Scientists have a consensus around a general phylogenetic tree. The only disputations among scientists are about leaves, not branches.

Which tree do scientists have a 'consensus' around? Sources please.

[littlechild]

Incorrect.

Scientists have a consensus around a general phylogenetic tree. The only disputations among scientists are about leaves, not branches.

I can create a phylogenetic tree of one phyla, then another phylogenetic tree of a different kingdom, then another phylogenetic tree of my own human family, without being inconsistent even with myself (even around the leaves). Multiple trees does not imply disagreement. Furthermore, disagreement about the leaves of the "phylogenetic tree of life" does not imply substantial disagreement over evolutionary history. Again, I challenge you to find a "phylogenetic tree of life" in which the major branches differ from those in the example I posted. Put up or shut up.

Since you refuse to do your homework to support your own unfounded assertions, I will show you where you're statements have no correlation to the facts.

Here are scientists in the field discussing the problems with phylogenetic trees. Show me where you think they agree on single universal tree. And then give me a copy of that tree if you can find it.

Molecular biologists James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera, 1999: "When scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organsims and found that their relationships to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

French biologists Herve Phillippe and Patrick Forterre: "With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree."

University of Illinois biologist Carl Woese: "No consistent phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various groups to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. "

Biologist Michael Lynch: "Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."

A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates; and another one based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales than to horses.

Biologist Ford Doolittle: "Maybe molecular phylogeneticists have failed to find the 'true tree' not because their they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree."

and an article titled "Uprooting the Tree of Life", in Scientific American, February 2000, states "Now new hypotheses, having final forms we cannot guess, are called for."

[littlechild]

You assume a bizarre homogeneity of fitness, when in fact there are millions of different niches that plants and animals exploit. Different organisms evolve at different times, at different rates, and as a response to different stimuli. That should explain any quandaries you claim to have found here.

Oh, they do, do they? What life forms are evolving today? Show me ubuiquity of the evolutionary force...show me some transitionary forms alive today. Tell us what they are evolving to. There must be hundreds of thousands of these, since there are multiple millions of species out there - which ones are evolving and what are they evolving to? And what biological structures are they developing?

Oh, I know, it happens so slowly its indetectable - right.

Evolution is a theory that bends every time its confronted with the facts. If any fact contradicts evolution - it's the fact that's wrong, not the theory.

[semlogo]

You mean like Darwin.

Not at all like Darwin.

I don't think reality and religion are necessarily enemies, though you may disagree.

[semlogo]

No, we don't know that at all. In fact, it's impossible to ever know that something is not true.

Yes we do. If someone told you that in 1900 there was a meteor strike that killed everyone in the world except eight people, you could look to geology and archeology to verify the story. We can look at history and archeology and geology and verify that such an even never happened. Billions never died - civilizations kept on going. We have living trees older than the flood. World civilizations were not wiped out. We know that for a fact. If you chose to live in a make believe world, that is your right, of course.

[littlechild]

Yes we do. If someone told you that in 1900 there was a meteor strike that killed everyone in the world except eight people, you could look to geology and archeology to verify the story. We can look at history and archeology and geology and verify that such an even never happened. Billions never died - civilizations kept on going. We have living trees older than the flood. World civilizations were not wiped out. We know that for a fact. If you chose to live in a make believe world, that is your right, of course.

So nothing about natural history requires evolutionary theory as an explanation. The theory was dreamed up by humans in much the same way as the Greek gods were - they saw an event and determined to explain it in a way that to them was plausible.

There is nothing about Archaeopteryx that requires that we believe it to be a link between older and newer generations. The same applies to all the other supposed "missing links" which are not links. In fact, evolution contradicts itself, by stating that evolution takes millions and billions of years, but then it all happened during the Cambrian period.

If speciation and natural selection were true, as the neo-Darwinists claim, we should be witnessing significant numbers of transitional life forms evolving - not just in some distant past - they should be snowballing all around us. Evolution is not happening today, never happened, and never will. Strange how you can't predict the emergence of new life forms with it, though supposedly that's how millions of life forms came to be.

Evolution is DEAD apparently.

[littlechild]

Scientists have a consensus around a general phylogenetic tree. The only disputations among scientists are about leaves, not branches.

I can create a phylogenetic tree of one phyla, then another phylogenetic tree of a different kingdom, then another phylogenetic tree of my own human family, without being inconsistent even with myself (even around the leaves). ............. Put up or shut up.

Not only is there not one universal tree, there are SO MANY phylogenetic trees that scientists have to use computer programs to generate them. And they are sophisticated to the degree that they allow you to change your assumptions on the fly in order to generate entirely new trees based upon your assumptions:

http://esi-topics.com/fbp/comments/august02-Hue-Ron.html

QUOTE:

The paper simply describes a computer program that other scientists can use to analyze DNA sequences that were sampled from different organisms of the same species or from different species. The program will provide the user with information on the best phylogenetic tree (or genealogy relating the species) along with information on the reliability of the tree. In order to reconstruct the phylogeny of a group of species, you need to make assumptions about how the DNA sequences evolve. The program allows the user to specify a large number of models (sets of assumptions) and explore the consequences of making different assumptions about how the DNA sequences evolve.

ENDQUOTE

So unfortunately for your argument, scientists must content themselves with a 'best-effort' tree even for a portion of the 'universal tree'. They can't even get consensus on small sections of the tree

[Maidservant]

Take the presence of the Jacobson's organ. In snakes it's used to smell the air brought into the mouth by the flicking of the tongue. Humans have it too, but it's just a vestigial organ - it doesn't do anything. It's a leftover product of evolution.

Didn't read the article/source on this, so maybe if I had it would answer this question. Are there other animals that have this organ? Because humans aren't descended from snakes, are they?

You are far closer to the truth than you realize. In theory, you could boil water with nothing but the sound of your voice alone. Just tell it to "boil" often enough and long enough and eventually the water would begin to boil. Granted, you would probably starve to death and the water would evaporate long before that ever happened, but that is essentially the basic principle of the microwave oven. The microwave just works at a much higher frequency and higher energy level than your own voice.

You stated it well. I have come back around to the probability of God literally using his voice to effect creation, not least because technologies we currently enjoy have voice-command capabilities (and I make the presumption that we are at a lower technological status than God, therefore the technology that he would have used to create the earth would, of course (so I say), involve voice commands, eezy peezy).

I think you will see religions and there adherents continue to reinterpret the bible and other scriptures to fit with science. We will always have some who view the scriptures literally, but there numbers seem to be dropping with each new generation. Science will continue on it's merry way discarding things that don't work for things that do with religion following a ways behind.

I view this a little differently. From where I am standing in terms of the age of history I am in, the restoration of the gospel I accept, and the person that I am . . . I wouldn't not set up the dichotomy the way you have. I think the darkness of information and knowledge and science (including having a correct understanding of what is even presented in the scriptures) is NOT a function of faith and religion, but rather a LACK of faith and religion. So if we discard understandings relating to scriptures, I would view it easily as an increase in faith and light. I see all science as an increase of godly faith and light. I do not separate my science and religion.

Why though? None of this, even if taken as fact, would preclude a God in any way.

[btw, I think I quoted the wrong LOP statement . . . may have been something he said earlier]

I have thought this. There is a paradigm limit we all have as humans thus far and that even Darwin's ideas and further evolutionary theory concepts are subject to . . . as well as our current "religious" understandings . . . and that paradigm limit is the necessity of a "beginning". So all concepts we have are circumscribed by this limit of paradigm and very few are able to or willing to think beyond it, and so only those ideas that fit within a necessity of a "beginning" are going to be produced. But ultimately I don't know why the necessity of a "beginning" is not seriously questioned and examined and the concepts that don't require a "beginning" located.

And I will say in general to this conversation . . . I feel very emotionally stressed and fearful to speak my opinion. And I'm sorry that is a result that some posters here are fine with. I have thought for myself *gasp* that what I understand of evolutionary theory does not satisfy me as an explanation for the origin of the human body; nor for any other principle of creation. I draw my objections from the theory itself (which I know I need to understand more of) as well as a few acceptations that I make such as, for example, yes, I do have a Father in heaven who created; as well as my understanding of programming. I am willing to learn and to be further convinced, but it hasn't happened yet. Granted my bookmark in Origin of Species and the one in Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory still aren't very far along. I am also willing to discard my presumptions such as my understanding that I have a Father in heaven who creates . . . but for that to happen, I guess He'd have to stop talking to me. I'd have to stop having personal experiences with him in my life.

When I read things that are traditionally considered religious (although as I said I do not separate my knowledge into camps), such as Genesis, I quite often take things at face value, but I question quite heartily, and I will then find myself learning from many sources all sorts of things that open possibilities to me . . . and people looking from the outside in to my mind may think I've come down on the side of literalness and/or religion in one instance, or the side of science and method and symbolism on the other . . . but from the point of view of me, inside my mind, it's all the same. Knowledge is knowledge is knowledge, and I constantly find myself accepting something as true, and then, next week . . . learning a little more . . . as well as finding there are some constants that never (seem to) change.

One thing that I say about the origin of the human body . . . my starting point for my own thinking is that it is an observable fact that human bodies are reproduced from other human bodies (two). Going from there, and speaking about paradigms, either "religious" or "scientific" . . . I find it both "religiously" and "scientifically" audacious to suggest that any other process ever took place. What is the necessity of even LOOKING for another process (I'm asking)? Why would we think that we NEEDED to have an "explanation"? Why doesn't the observation of what actually happens satisfy us? I'm asking. It's not WRONG to look for these explanations, just audacious! Ha ha. Because if we are going on straight observation, in my opinion, the story is very short and it goes like I've said: "Human bodies are reproduced from other human bodies." End of story. The need for any further story is a conceptual, paradigm construction whether "religious" or "scientific", and I, for one, don't feel the need to play.

[littlechild]

One thing that I say about the origin of the human body . . . my starting point for my own thinking is that it is an observable fact that human bodies are reproduced from other human bodies (two). Going from there, and speaking about paradigms, either "religious" or "scientific" . . . I find it both "religiously" and "scientifically" audacious to suggest that any other process ever took place. What is the necessity of even LOOKING for another process (I'm asking)? Why would we think that we NEEDED to have an "explanation"? Why doesn't the observation of what actually happens satisfy us? I'm asking. It's not WRONG to look for these explanations, just audacious! Ha ha. Because if we are going on straight observation, in my opinion, the story is very short and it goes like I've said: "Human bodies are reproduced from other human bodies." End of story. The need for any further story is a conceptual, paradigm construction whether "religious" or "scientific", and I, for one, don't feel the need to play.

You raise a very good point. How did reproduction evolve? Or did both sexes always exist? If they always existed, then it must have been "extra-evolutionary". If not, how did we transition from non-reproductive to reproductive beings?

As an aside, my wife mentions that men evolved in order to twist lids off the vanilla extract bottles for their wives.

I don't believe in vestigial organs anymore either. Not since the last 100 or so have been found to serve a useful purpose in the human body.

In order to believe in vestigial organs, you have to assume evolution. It's a tautology - evolutionists assume evolution and then use their assumption to 'prove' evolution. As I stated before and I'll state again - similarity does not prove evolution, it only proves similarity. Circular thinking gets us nowhere.

[thesometimesaint]

Littlechild:

Don't be childish. This is the "missing link" for vertebrate animals to live on land.

[Bee Eff]

No offense, but do you have any scientifically accepted articles to support your position against evolution? An Internet source or a quasi-scientific religious site is not an acceptable source for scientific information. Something from an academic journal would be best.

If you cannot accept evolution, why do you accept the rest of biology? It is the same people doing the work, are they not really experts?

Theists often claim that atheists cannot state God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, they then state the lack of evidence in no way threatens the existence of God. These same theists are often attacking evolution based not on an absence of evidence, but some very minor gaps in the evidence. You cannot have it both ways. If the evidence supporting evolution is insufficient for "belief" in evolution, then God cannot be believed to exist based on the evidence.

[littlechild]

No offense, but do you have any scientifically accepted articles to support your position against evolution? An Internet source or a quasi-scientific religious site is not an acceptable source for scientific information. Something from an academic journal would be best.

If you cannot accept evolution, why do you accept the rest of biology? It is the same people doing the work, are they not really experts?

Theists often claim that atheists cannot state God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, they then state the lack of evidence in no way threatens the existence of God. These same theists are often attacking evolution based not on an absence of evidence, but some very minor gaps in the evidence. You cannot have it both ways. If the evidence supporting evolution is insufficient for "belief" in evolution, then God cannot be believed to exist based on the evidence.

Gentle reader, have you read what I have posted? Do you dispute anything specific about it? If so, let me know in detail what you dispute, and why. Perhaps we can reason it out together. Your appeal to the authoritarianism of credentialed Darwinists is touching, but misguided. You can't ask a propaganda expert to be objective. There were around 500 scientific papers on the Piltdown Man prior to the revelation that it was all a fraud. Do you now propose that scientists are bias free and that this sort of thing is not possible to happen again? If so, then perhaps you can explain why Eohippus is considered the earliest version of horse?

# Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium ("Eohippus"), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say "This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammalsâ?¦The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, G. G. Simpson,1944, p 105)

# "The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [it has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."â??H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

# "The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by 60 million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species.. . . If the horse series is anything to go by their numbers must have been the 'infinitude' that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or mollusks and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record" (M. Denton, p. 186).

I accept biology, but I do not accept neo-Darwinism. Biology was a science long before neo-Darwinism arrived on the scene, and it will continue to be a science even though Darwinism will die out in the next 20-30 years due to lack of credibility.

There are not, as you claim, 'minor gaps' in the evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever. There are only hunches, intuitions, speculations, hypotheses, and contradictions. Every time a fact arises that contradicts the theory, evolutionists decry the facts rather than the theory.

If you will simply open your eyes to objective reality, a paradigm shift will occur. If you don't - it will happen anyway. There is no reason in the fossil record, or anywhere else, to force us to adopt an evolutionary explanation for the existence or continuance of life, or for biology to be understood. Darwinism is nothing more than a false explanation, a materialistic interpretation, and a contradiction of microbiological evidence. The more you look at it, the more it falls apart - the more you realize it is a tautology. One must assume evolution before one accepts the explanations of evolution - there is no single fact of evolutionary biology that would necessitate that we believe the theory as a whole to be true. But again, there are many reasons to reject it, read my former posts please, I have given you the broad outline sufficient for you to understand my position.

[littlechild]

No offense, but do you have any scientifically accepted articles to support your position against evolution? An Internet source or a quasi-scientific religious site is not an acceptable source for scientific information. Something from an academic journal would be best.

James Shapiroâ??s long study of bacteria has culminated in a concise statement of the new theory of life and of evolution. His basic principles are these:

* All genome functions are interactive: the genome is always in communication with rest of the cell

* Every genome component operates as part of a complex information-processing system (no â??one gene-one traitâ??correlation)

* Genome systems are organized and integrated into cell networks by repetitive DNA (there is no â??junkâ?? DNA)

* Genome change is a regulated biological function

* Natural genetic engineering processes are subject to biological feedback at multiple levels

* Sensing, computation and decision-making are central features of cellular functions

* The cell is an active agent utilizing information stored in genome

* Information flow is multidirectional and all genomic functions are interactive.

* Genome change as a biochemical process subject to regulation

* Cell function is controlled by informatic rather than mechanical processes

* Signals play the critical role in the revamp of cell and organismal phenotypes

Shapiro argues that current knowledge of cellular activity contradicts the basic principles of neo-Darwinism, which assumes that the genome is constant, subject only to random, localized changes at a constant mutation rate. But it is now known that the genome is subject to episodic, massive, and non-random reorganization that may produce new functions.

Shapiro has set forth his position in his essays: A 21st Century View of Evolution, Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century, Why Repetitive DNA is Essential Genome Function, and, Natural GeneticEngineering and Adaptative Mutation, all available online here.