Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Rob Osborn]

"All I know is that if I don't understand abiogenesis or we haven't replicated it yet in a lab, then all of evolution is false and ID is true." This is the essence of your argument.

Not at all. Abiogenesis has never been documented. In fact, countless scientific studies have shown that intelligent life only comes from intelligent processes preceding it. That is a fact, proven over and over again. Never has it been shown that intelligence can arisefrom nonintelligent sources precedibg it. If hardcore Darwinian evolutionists want to prove their beliefs, then they have to prove that intelligence can ariseon its own. Good luck.

[bcuzbcuz]

The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical EvolutionProblem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial SoupProblem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic CodeProblem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex StructuresProblem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into PopulationsProblem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian EvolutionProblem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life"Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common AncestryProblem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common AncestryProblem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many SpeciesProblem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and "Junk DNA"From: http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Once again the people at Discovery.org paint with broad strokes and stay away from giving specifics. They criticize the idea of a primordal soup, then continue to make points by stating, IF there was a primordal soup, then......

The authors there are trying to paint a picture. But they're using a 6 inch broad paintbeush to fill in a paint by numbers picture. Yes, they cover all the points but the picture doesn't come close to being accurate.

Find me something from Discovery.org that talks specifics. I'd like to hear something from them that covers the Cambrian period in detail. Have them discuss the development of a backbone in the Myllokunmingia. I'd like to hear them discuss the differences in the flipper development of a coelacanth to flipper bones (humerus, radius, ulna) of the tiktaalik.

No specifics, no sense.

[thesometimesaint]

Not at all. Abiogenesis has never been documented. In fact, countless scientific studies have shown that intelligent life only comes from intelligent processes preceding it. That is a fact, proven over and over again. Never has it been shown that intelligence can arisefrom nonintelligent sources precedibg it. If hardcore Darwinian evolutionists want to prove their beliefs, then they have to prove that intelligence can ariseon its own. Good luck.

 

Yes it has.

SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html

SEE

 

Dr. Jack Szostak got the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work in abiogenesis.

[SmileyMcGee]

Not at all. Abiogenesis has never been documented. In fact, countless scientific studies have shown that intelligent life only comes from intelligent processes preceding it. That is a fact, proven over and over again. Never has it been shown that intelligence can arisefrom nonintelligent sources precedibg it. If hardcore Darwinian evolutionists want to prove their beliefs, then they have to prove that intelligence can ariseon its own. Good luck.

Please reference the studies that have proven that abiogenesis cannot occur naturally.

Edited March 1, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[danielwoods]

Once again the people at Discovery.org paint with broad strokes and stay away from giving specifics. They criticize the idea of a primordal soup, then continue to make points by stating, IF there was a primordal soup, then......

The authors there are trying to paint a picture. But they're using a 6 inch broad paintbeush to fill in a paint by numbers picture. Yes, they cover all the points but the picture doesn't come close to being accurate.

Find me something from Discovery.org that talks specifics. I'd like to hear something from them that covers the Cambrian period in detail. Have them discuss the development of a backbone in the Myllokunmingia. I'd like to hear them discuss the differences in the flipper development of a coelacanth to flipper bones (humerus, radius, ulna) of the tiktaalik.

No specifics, no sense.

 

When the coelacanth stopped developing, and stayed the same as it was 300 million years ago, there is no explanation except "they didn't need to change to survive." There literally is no real information in the details. Evolution "through history" has no explanatory power. It doesn't predict anything that we can't learn by observing animals today. 300 million years is thrown around, without any actual reference point to verify such a time frame, so we're all suppose to just believe it based on what exactly? 

 

So, while you ask for details, I'm interested in real facts. The similarity and supposed development of flipper bones proves nothing (except a fertile imagination), unless of course you can demonstrate that they actually had a common ancestor. 

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

So, while you ask for details, I'm interested in real facts.

...

 

Let's go back to the blind white crabs found out here in the

Pacific -- or to pale, blind snakes found deep under ground

in caverns only connected to the outside world by small,

infrequent access holes.

 

What does it mean, that such sightless animals have well

developed eyes -- but, even when moved out of the utter

darkness of their age-old homes, their eyes cannot see?

 

Who sinned, that such creatures are born sightless? They

or their ancestors?

 

My answer is that such examples in the animal kingdom

have arisen from sighted ancestors -- hundreds of thousands

(or perhaps a few millions) of years ago, those ancestors

could use their eyes to view objects around them. But, by

natural selection, many generations later, some of their

offspring, born with very limited vision, were better adapted

to survive and compete in very dark environments.

 

And, some of the offspring of those poor-seers, were born

with even less of an ability to perceive by sight -- and they

were even better adapted to compete and survive in their

dark environments.

 

Finally, thousands of generations later, the totally blind

animals did the best of all -- outliving (perhaps even eating)

their relatives still possessing some vestiges of sight.

 

 

Or -- another possibility -- God created them with blind eyes

on the fourth or fifth day of creation, and placed them in those

remote, sunless spots, according to the Divine Plan.

 

Which possibility do you consider to be the more reasonable one?

 

UD

[bcuzbcuz]

When the coelacanth stopped developing, and stayed the same as it was 300 million years ago, there is no explanation except "they didn't need to change to survive." There literally is no real information in the details. Evolution "through history" has no explanatory power. It doesn't predict anything that we can't learn by observing animals today. 300 million years is thrown around, without any actual reference point to verify such a time frame, so we're all suppose to just believe it based on what exactly? 

 

So, while you ask for details, I'm interested in real facts. The similarity and supposed development of flipper bones proves nothing (except a fertile imagination), unless of course you can demonstrate that they actually had a common ancestor.

It would seem we're using the same words but the words have dissimilar, if not totally different, meanings. You begin by saying, "When the coelacanth stopped developing, and stayed the same as it was 300 million years ago, there is no explanation except "they didn't need to change to survive." There literally is no real information in the details."

No *real* information in the details??? Are you kidding me? Obviously your desire for "facts" blinds you to seeing information in the details. The flippers and even the alternating movement of the flippers of the caelacanth would seem to indicate that the coelacanth could move its bulk from the water to the land. When we only had the fossils of this fish, that was surmised because of the structures of the fins. Finding "real, live" coelacanths at the considerable depths where they thrive put paid to the incorrectness of that idea. Then closer studies were done on the fish and its flippers. The bones in the coelacanths flippers might/could give alternating step motion to the flippers but could not support the body weight of the fish, should it however improbably, find itself ready to step to dry land. This we know by detailed looking at the bone structures.

When the Tiktaalik fossil was found in Canada's/Alaska's far north, it showed a creature with flat features, both eyes located on top of the skull (very unlike the coelacanth's eye positioning on opposite sides of the skull) and a shoulder/shoulder blade construction that permitted the fin appendage to provide body support while lifting the body free of the ground. Furthermore, the Tiltaalik arm structure varied greatly from the coelacanths. The Tiktaalik had the single upper arm bone, connected by elbow bones to the double underarm bones, these connected to a grouping of wrist bones and finger like appendages. In summary, the tiktaalik could not only have flippers for water transport but had arms capable of lifting the body free from contact with the ground (much better mobility) because of the common vertabrate: shoulder scapula, humerus, elbow, radius, ulna, wrist.

But you want facts. You're probably looking for the simplist outline of an event or creature and a statement that: This is the absolute.....

Sciece doesn't give such absolutes. Sorry.

[thesometimesaint]

When the coelacanth stopped developing, and stayed the same as it was 300 million years ago, there is no explanation except "they didn't need to change to survive." There literally is no real information in the details. Evolution "through history" has no explanatory power. It doesn't predict anything that we can't learn by observing animals today. 300 million years is thrown around, without any actual reference point to verify such a time frame, so we're all suppose to just believe it based on what exactly? 

 

So, while you ask for details, I'm interested in real facts. The similarity and supposed development of flipper bones proves nothing (except a fertile imagination), unless of course you can demonstrate that they actually had a common ancestor. 

 

That's a silly argument. It is like saying because there are still British there can't be American's.

Edited March 2, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

My answer is that such examples in the animal kingdom

have arisen from sighted ancestors -- hundreds of thousands

(or perhaps a few millions) of years ago, those ancestors

could use their eyes to view objects around them. But, by

natural selection, many generations later, some of their

offspring, born with very limited vision, were better adapted

to survive and compete in very dark environments.

 

And, some of the offspring of those poor-seers, were born

with even less of an ability to perceive by sight -- and they

were even better adapted to compete and survive in their

dark environments.

 

Finally, thousands of generations later, the totally blind

animals did the best of all -- outliving (perhaps even eating)

their relatives still possessing some vestiges of sight.

 

Or -- another possibility -- God created them with blind eyes

on the fourth or fifth day of creation, and placed them in those

remote, sunless spots, according to the Divine Plan.

 

Which possibility do you consider to be the more reasonable one?

 

UD

 

Neither. God created all animals with the innate ability to adapt, based on their genetic code. 

 

These animals are an example of adaptation within their predetermined genetic limits as designed by God. 

 

To look at these examples (blindness due to adaptation) and think that evolution or adaptation is enough to explain the "Origin of species" is to be blind to known facts. The fact that the genetic code was designed and written by an intelligent source. The fact that the genetic language is more than 30 times the complexity of our own language, indicating an intelligence much greater than our own is it's originator. 

[danielwoods]

It would seem we're using the same words but the words have dissimilar, if not totally different, meanings. You begin by saying, "When the coelacanth stopped developing, and stayed the same as it was 300 million years ago, there is no explanation except "they didn't need to change to survive." There literally is no real information in the details."

No *real* information in the details??? Are you kidding me? Obviously your desire for "facts" blinds you to seeing information in the details. The flippers and even the alternating movement of the flippers of the caelacanth would seem to indicate that the coelacanth could move its bulk from the water to the land. When we only had the fossils of this fish, that was surmised because of the structures of the fins. Finding "real, live" coelacanths at the considerable depths where they thrive put paid to the incorrectness of that idea. Then closer studies were done on the fish and its flippers. The bones in the coelacanths flippers might/could give alternating step motion to the flippers but could not support the body weight of the fish, should it however improbably, find itself ready to step to dry land. This we know by detailed looking at the bone structures.

When the Tiktaalik fossil was found in Canada's/Alaska's far north, it showed a creature with flat features, both eyes located on top of the skull (very unlike the coelacanth's eye positioning on opposite sides of the skull) and a shoulder/shoulder blade construction that permitted the fin appendage to provide body support while lifting the body free of the ground. Furthermore, the Tiltaalik arm structure varied greatly from the coelacanths. The Tiktaalik had the single upper arm bone, connected by elbow bones to the double underarm bones, these connected to a grouping of wrist bones and finger like appendages. In summary, the tiktaalik could not only have flippers for water transport but had arms capable of lifting the body free from contact with the ground (much better mobility) because of the common vertabrate: shoulder scapula, humerus, elbow, radius, ulna, wrist.

But you want facts. You're probably looking for the simplist outline of an event or creature and a statement that: This is the absolute.....

Sciece doesn't give such absolutes. Sorry.

 

What is amazing is that the above speculation is considered to be science. Not that the details aren't interesting, but the faith it takes to connect those dots that don't actually connect. 

 

It's like going into a store and seeing the similarities between cups and glasses and thinking that they must somehow be genetically related to each other because of their common structures. 

 

Why must there be a connection in your mind? What compels one to think that a creature in the sea that has similar vertebrate to a land mammal that it must therefore be connected somehow? Where has even one connection actually been observed? 

[thesometimesaint]

Neither. God created all animals with the innate ability to adapt, based on their genetic code. 

 

These animals are an example of adaptation within their predetermined genetic limits as designed by God. 

 

To look at these examples (blindness due to adaptation) and think that evolution or adaptation is enough to explain the "Origin of species" is to be blind to known facts. The fact that the genetic code was designed and written by an intelligent source. The fact that the genetic language is more than 30 times the complexity of our own language, indicating an intelligence much greater than our own is it's originator. 

 

Science can't posit any God or Godlike force and still be science.

 

And if God chose to modify some offspring of a species to the point it could no longer reproduce with the unmodified offspring that would be evolution.

 

Genetics works with 4 basic proteins A (adenine), T (thymine), C (cytosine) and G (guanine). Making an almost infinite variety of living organisms. There are 26 letters in the Roman Alphabet with an almost infinite variety of words that can be made.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

To look at these examples (blindness due to adaptation) and think that evolution or adaptation is enough to explain the "Origin of species" is to be blind to known facts. The fact that the genetic code was designed and written by an intelligent source. The fact that the genetic language is more than 30 times the complexity of our own language, indicating an intelligence much greater than our own is it's originator. 

 

Would it be possible -- and probable -- that in the millions

of years yet to come, that the offspring of these blind

creatures would eventually lose their organs of sight

altogether?

 

The Texas blind salamander seen in the graphic I posted,

shows a creature whose ocular organs are so tiny as not

to be readily discernible. We have to dissect these creatures

and examine them with a microscope to locate their "eyes."

And those eyes appear to be the remnants of organs once

fully developed (in their ancestors) which have, through

natural selection, deteriorated to the point of disappearance.

 

Can animals lose entire tissue types, organs and systems

over millions of years, so that their offspring in ages far

removed might swim in the oceans (and yet retain vestiges

of legs which grow smaller and less distinct over hundreds

of thousands of generations) rather than walking on land?

 

 

If organs can so change due to evolutionary processes we

discern in natural selection, why can they not become better,

stronger, and more successfully used -- and not merely

become worse, weaker, and almost absent in successful species?

 

UD

[danielwoods]

If organs can so change due to evolutionary processes we

discern in natural selection, why can they not become better,

stronger, and more successfully used -- and not merely

become worse, weaker, and almost absent in successful species?

 

UD

 

It has been observed that loss of abilities (such as sight or ability to mate) does occur with isolation and/or adaptation. The opposite hasn't been observed, such as the ability to see (when no such mechanism existed before in that animal) or other trait doesn't simply "evolve" as a result of a need to survive. Evolution as a theory does seem to have this ability though. It sprouts all sorts of new ideas to keep itself alive. 

[thesometimesaint]

It has been observed that loss of abilities (such as sight or ability to mate) does occur with isolation and/or adaptation. The opposite hasn't been observed, such as the ability to see (when no such mechanism existed before in that animal) or other trait doesn't simply "evolve" as a result of a need to survive. Evolution as a theory does seem to have this ability though. It sprouts all sorts of new ideas to keep itself alive. 

 

Evolution of the Eye

SEE

[Uncle Dale]

It has been observed that loss of abilities (such as sight or ability to mate) does occur with isolation and/or adaptation. The opposite hasn't been observed, such as the ability to see (when no such mechanism existed before in that animal) or other trait doesn't simply "evolve" as a result of a need to survive. Evolution as a theory does seem to have this ability though. It sprouts all sorts of new ideas to keep itself alive.

A lengthy line-up of animals possessing various types

of light sensing cells, organs and ocular systems could

be charted out here.

Branches in that chart could be introduced, so that the

arrangement of these creatures lead from blind ones

possessing the rudiments of light detection, all the

way down (or up) to the complex eyes now observable

in molusks, arachnids, reptiles, cats and humans.

While such a chart would not prove that our eyes and

the eyes of an octopus both evolved from our common

ancestor, the chart would be compatible with the idea

of natural selection -- for example, that the eyes of

ancient cats and ancient civits would have been more

similar than what exists today.

Creationists, fundamentalists, and some Mormons used

to argue the point, saying that our eyes are so complex

that their lenses and other parts could not possibly have

evolved from something less complex -- and certainly

no significant changes could have occurred in the very

short period (8,000 years) separating us from our

First Parents.

But, in looking over the evidence now available, I'm

convinced that organs of sight cannot only deteriorate

and vanish over time, due to natural selection, but

can also improve and grow more complex.

Am I wrong to come to such a personal conclusion?

UD

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution of the Eye

SEE

Nice fairytale.

[bcuzbcuz]

What is amazing is that the above speculation is considered to be science. Not that the details aren't interesting, but the faith it takes to connect those dots that don't actually connect. 

 

It's like going into a store and seeing the similarities between cups and glasses and thinking that they must somehow be genetically related to each other because of their common structures. 

 

Why must there be a connection in your mind? What compels one to think that a creature in the sea that has similar vertebrate to a land mammal that it must therefore be connected somehow? Where has even one connection actually been observed?

Connecting dots, an interesting comparison. Science does connect dots, but it doesn't take faith to accept it as a possibility. It's a connection that only holds as long as no one can provide a better conclusion. Evolution does connect dots. All you have to do to debunk evolution is come up with a better explanation of how species develop and connect the dots without resorting to "magic". Or find one piece of evidence that cannot fit within the parameters. It's been said before, Find a fossil of a modern animal (pick any of the kinds from Noah's ark) located in undisturbed earth, lying amongst fossils from the Cambrian period. Find a skeleton of a dog from Noah's time lying amongst dinosaur bones and evolution will get thrown out the door. (Not right away and not without a fight and long arguments, but science does change)

You want to draw a similar connection between cups and glasses. I can buy that. I've studied ancient pottery from pre-historic Egypt. My favourite pottery is the black-rimmed redware. I can even give a date when I first became acquainted with this earthware. I know exactly where I was and what I was doing.

Four months ago I spent four days at the Petrie Museum at the University College of London studying this pottery, from broken shards to whole, exquisitely beautiful, pots. And the same museum has also a multitude of early glass ware, made from volcanic beads of glass found in the Sahara. But the Egyptians didn't make them into drinking glasses. Cups and glasses evolved much, much later than pottery. (People used long handled scoops and ladles, and drank from a common source, before anyone thought of making a glass or cup) But we still use scoops nowadays, even though we have cups. (we use scoops here in Sweden and Finland when we're in a sauna)

[name]

An interesting thread, IMO!

 

A few random thoughts:

 

First simple-single cells (life) spontaneously form from non-living matter (abiogenesis) - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

The evolution of mitosis (cell division/splitting) - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

The evolution of male/female sexual reproduction - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

 

One of my personal favorites: The proposed evolutional steps from fish to quadruped to whale.

 

 

Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter

Simple/Single celled organism goes multi and evolves into marine organism of some type

Marine organism (fish) evolves spinal chord

Fish with spinal chord begins evolving legs and starts to crawl out of water

Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head - fur evolved and legs extend

Results in a 30 pound raccoon-like predator who kills and eats other land dwelling animals

Furry raccoon-like creature goes back in water

Legs de-evolve and become tiny bones

Fins re-evolve

Two nostrils migrate to top of head - become single opening blowhole. 

Flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out.

Ears that evolved previously - gradually evolve away and become internal

Fur that previously evolved - evolves away

Eyes that once migrated to front of head now migrate back to side of head

30 pound raccoon-like land dweller evolves back to water and becomes a 200,000 pound whale - the largest organism on earth

Diet goes from killer/predator to eating krill and plankton

[thesometimesaint]

Abiogenesis doesn't claim the spontaneous generation of the modern cell.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

 

Evolution of whale

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

[name]

Hi Sometime,

Abiogenesis doesn't claim the spontaneous generation of the modern cell.

Yes, it is clearly silent concerning the modern cell (or modern anything else for that matter)

But - it does claim to be the natural process of life forming from non-living matter.

Evolution of whale

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

You're convinced I presume?

[danielwoods]

But, in looking over the evidence now available, I'm

convinced that organs of sight cannot only deteriorate

and vanish over time, due to natural selection, but

can also improve and grow more complex.

Am I wrong to come to such a personal conclusion?

UD

 

I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong or right. My only point is that there is no observable evidence to even make that conclusion a logical choice. 

 

We could line up all sorts of organisms with different types of ocular abilities. And we could theorize that they are all connected through the history of the Earth. 

And we could also line up fossils and do the exact same theorizing. My question is where is the beef? Where is the actual evidence that these things can even happen. 

 

If I create a car that looks like other cars, smells like other cars and feels like other cars. You might be right in theorizing that it might run and operate just like a car. However, until it is actually tested and observed to function as a car, it remains just an unsubstantiated theory. The same is true with the power of evolution throughout history. We haven't actually seen it work, yet there are so many smart people who believe it's true, therefore many conclude that it must be, because that's seen to be a safe conclusion. 

 

The answer is usually that it takes such a long time to actually observe, so my objection is seen as unreasonable. OK. Then what is the appreciable difference to appealing to millions or billions of years, which we can't see, and God whom we can't see either? 

 

Both take faith. 

Edited March 3, 2015 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong or right. My only point is that there is no observable evidence to even make that conclusion a logical choice. 

 

We could line up all sorts of organisms with different types of ocular abilities. And we could theorize that they are all connected through the history of the Earth. 

And we could also line up fossils and do the exact same theorizing. My question is where is the beef? Where is the actual evidence that these things can even happen. 

 

If I create a car that looks like other cars, smells like other cars and feels like other cars. You might be right in theorizing that it might run and operate just like a car. However, until it is actually tested and observed to function as a car, it remains just an unsubstantiated theory. The same is true with the power of evolution throughout history. We haven't actually seen it work, yet there are so many smart people who believe it's true, therefore many conclude that it must be, because that's seen to be a safe conclusion. 

 

The answer is usually that it takes such a long time to actually observe, so my objection is seen as unreasonable. OK. Then what is the appreciable difference to appealing to millions or billions of years, which we can't see, and God whom we can't see either? 

 

Both take faith. 

 

SEE

[danielwoods]

Connecting dots, an interesting comparison. Science does connect dots, but it doesn't take faith to accept it as a possibility. It's a connection that only holds as long as no one can provide a better conclusion. Evolution does connect dots. All you have to do to debunk evolution is come up with a better explanation of how species develop and connect the dots without resorting to "magic". Or find one piece of evidence that cannot fit within the parameters. It's been said before, Find a fossil of a modern animal (pick any of the kinds from Noah's ark) located in undisturbed earth, lying amongst fossils from the Cambrian period. Find a skeleton of a dog from Noah's time lying amongst dinosaur bones and evolution will get thrown out the door. (Not right away and not without a fight and long arguments, but science does change)

You want to draw a similar connection between cups and glasses. I can buy that. I've studied ancient pottery from pre-historic Egypt. My favourite pottery is the black-rimmed redware. I can even give a date when I first became acquainted with this earthware. I know exactly where I was and what I was doing.

Four months ago I spent four days at the Petrie Museum at the University College of London studying this pottery, from broken shards to whole, exquisitely beautiful, pots. And the same museum has also a multitude of early glass ware, made from volcanic beads of glass found in the Sahara. But the Egyptians didn't make them into drinking glasses. Cups and glasses evolved much, much later than pottery. (People used long handled scoops and ladles, and drank from a common source, before anyone thought of making a glass or cup) But we still use scoops nowadays, even though we have cups. (we use scoops here in Sweden and Finland when we're in a sauna)

 

The connection of the dots that don't connect in my opinion, is an act of faith. The belief or trust that is activated in our hearts and brains is the same for those who are religious believers in God. 

 

Why is that? Well, for example, if they didn't have to be connected by faith, such as studying a modern animal alive today, no dots need to be connected to observe the function of said animal, therefore no faith is necessary. Our minds are wonderful things, we put things together to try and make sense of them. This is what I see happening with evolution. 

 

For example. Your "test" that would debunk evolutionary theory through the history of time is a reference to the cambrian level. Which is yet another source of dots that don't connect. In essence, evolution relies on layers of faith that aren't even realized by those who believe it. How do we know that the cambrian level is older? Was anyone able to observe that? Of course not. Therefore it is based on another theory. 

 

So, while your "test" is interesting, it's not likely that such a thing will be found. It's just like with the Coelacanth, it's a deep sea fish. It was found where? Deeper in "Older" layers of sediment. Not because those layers are older, but because it was buried where it resided. Deeper than other organisms. Which is why when said fish was found alive, the evolutionary believers were surprised that it couldn't and didn't do what they expected.  Their theories are built on other equally non-valid theories. 

[thesometimesaint]

Science is based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions about our natural world/universe. IE;  No one has ever seen an electron. Yet you right now are using the Electron Theory with your computer.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

[Ahab]

Science is based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions about our natural world/universe. IE; No one has ever seen an electron. Yet you right now are using the Electron Theory with your computer.

Would it make you feel better if I told you that I see many fragments of truth in the theory of evolution, both micro and macro?

I just say it's silly, or to be nicer, simply not true, as a whole... when talking about what many people usually think about and talk about as "evolution".

It would help a little if the proponents of evolution would make it a point to clarify that evolution doesn't involve one kind of being becoming another kind of being, like a cat becoming a dog or a fish becoming an ape or a man or any other kind of being. If it was made more clear that that kind of thing is impossible according to the theory of evolution. But you guys are not on the ball and haven't even taken the time to give a basic definition to what a "kind" of being refers to, leaving that up in the air for confusion.

It's like you guys need an ambassador or something like that to help with science PR problems.