I was waiting to see what Mr "there's no excuse for not responding" had to say, but I guess he wandered off.
Bruce, I think you are wrong, but let me see if I understand you. Because I think we may be dealing with what No Child Left Behind did to biology classes. You're saying that there should be an intermediate species between men and monkeys if evolution is true? I am not making fun of you (and I may be the only person in this thread that isn't). If you're asking a serious question, I'll give you a serious answer. This is not a stupid question, but it stems from a misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually says. According to this theory, chimpanzees and gorillas and men stem from a common primate ancestor. So men are not descended from monkeys -- they are cousins to monkeys, kinda. The idea is that if we are in an environment where say a lot of fur increased the odds of living long enough to reproduce -- as it might at high altitude dor instance - then you'll get a lot lot of furry individuals breeding together and their children will tend to be furrier. That'sa really simplistic example, but that's it in a nutshell. Does that help? It may for instance, give you an inkling that your question does not have an actual answer, not because it is a good question, but because it isn't. Dana On 11/17/07, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I am back. > > OK, so Darwin claims that organisms just evolve into better organisms, that > the less desirable traits of an organism die off and the more desirable > traits survive and evolve into other organisms, leading to the creation of > actual species, and that these species evolve into higher species and so on. > > So if this is true, where is the intermediate form of species, the > connecting links if you will? Darwin was asked this question and he did not > have an answer. Nor is there any archeological evidence to back his theory. > Although there is ample evidence for many complete species, fossil records > provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links. > > Later on, Darwin's theory was revised by scientists and thus was born the > Punctuated Equilibrium evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution > invisible in the fossil record (how convenient). But of course this theory > is not verifiable in any way and is in fact considered highly speculative. > > Many will say that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution, but the > question again has to be asked: Where are the half-evolved dinosaurs or > other creatures? The answer is, there are none? > > The only thing that the fossil record contains is the records of complete, > fully-formed species. If evolution were true, then surely there would be > proof of half or partially evolved species? > > This is one of the many holes in his theory, and to me this is a big one. > Something cannot evolve out of nothing, right? If evolution were true, then > again I ask where the proof is. Where are the partially evolved species? > If something is partially evolved, then how a partially evolved species > could eat, breath or breed is beyond me. Can someone offer a scientific > explanation of this? > > Let's just start with the above questions and see where it goes from there. > > Bruce > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:08 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Great press for Our Lord and Savior > > Bruce > > What do you see as holes? > > just wondering > Dana > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Enterprise web applications, build robust, secure scalable apps today - Try it now ColdFusion Today ColdFusion 8 beta - Build next generation apps Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:246616 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
