It's just a theory

[Nique]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

Godwin's Law doesn't quite work that way.

It doesn't?

Originally Posted by Wiki

...here is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

It was indirect, but that was a pretty distinct 'hitler' comparision.

Originally Posted by Archbio

A fossil "between two species" would automatically belong to its own species.

Please. I understand this - don't think me an idiot. The point is that the link would show large similarities & combinations of the speicies that it derived from, and that it reproduced.

But again, similarities and/or variety don't nessesitate an evolved path - Just becuase we share 99% similar or the same genes with chimps, (I'm looking at you, spacepope) does not mean we were derived from the same family. It could mean that, or it could merely mean that for any animal life to exisist, certain genetic qualifiers must exisist, and thus 'life' shares those. I'm surprised at how much (genetically) in common we share with other animals, as well.

Feathered dinosaurs are an interesting discovery, but no more evidence than the egg-laying mammals we observe today (which you might consider to be substancial, I suppose)

Personally I think the hominid fossil record displays massive change over time as well as anything could.

Thats the problem though. The fossil record displays only huge jumps, and no inbetween. The 'massive' part is illustrated just fine... its the 'change' part that I can't really see solid proof of.

Originally Posted by ZAKthegeek

I can think of two reasons for why we can't really see this happening much today. The first is simply that it's less necessary. Obviously, today's organisms are much more evolved than those of millions or billions of years ago (assuming evolution is correct). As such, they are already adapted quite well, and generally have little reason to change any further. As such, most changes would only be detrimental.

Its a reasonable explination, but its still smacks of 'explaining things away'.

Originally Posted by krylo

Firstly, the law of thermodynamics is disproven by quantum mechanics.

Thermodynaics is a bad argument against evolution anyway, I've heard it said. I've never used it (I hope - I've been on the internets for a while now.)

Originally Posted by krylo

we should have found more fossils than a few necklaces from that period, and we would have found non-human multi-celled creatures from it as well. The non-human ones, at least, would be easily accepted as the biological ancestors of various creatures from other periods.

Agreed? Maybe you could clarify that part a bit, for good 'ol Nique....

Originally Posted by krylo

Regardless of the religion, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Vedic, or even worshipping Zeus himself, as soon as a 'scientist' starts writing books about how x-theory could work with x-religion if x-thing was different, everything he or she says is immediately suspect.

I'm of the opinion that you generally shouldn't try molding such ideas togethor, or fundamentally altering them to fit each other. It kind of undermines both to say 'well, lets change this one, kind of important detail,just so that everyone will be happy'. Just, stick to your guns until you can't anymore, ya know?

Originally Posted by Azisien

Have you heard of punctuated equilibrium? It wouldn't be a fullproof explanational-concrete to patch up that hole, but it does bring up the idea that, intermediate species aren't there because: They are short-lived, as such, they probably did not 'get lucky' or 'fall under the proper circumstance' and fossilize. I know little of fossilization myself, but I've taken some courses in evolutionary biology.

I think intermediate speicies, at the very least a rare few, would last a substancial period of time. Enough so that their population would boom, and the gene pool would get mixed up enough to jump-start another change.

The time involved from one change to the next makes it seem like there should be some evidence of it.

Originally Posted by Skyshot

Isn't it cocky for non-creationists make that claim? We're the highest stage of evolution?

Well, do you see any speicies "better" or "smarter" than humans? (Douglas Adams quotes aside). There you go then, we are the pinnicale.[/sarcasm]