Has evolution been proven ?

You are hiding behind the facade of logidemicizing with the specific intent of also saying that no one can challenge what you said because to do so might indicate ignorance.Say whatever you said in plain english or your knowledge is useless to an ordinary person. What a person cannot understand will be used against them.

Just what exactly, was difficult to understand in Mark's post? And just who is hiding behind non-plain English with their use of Scott's made up words?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Congratulations, Willowtree. You are now the FIRST person ever to use the word logidemicizing on the internet. Googling for the word turned up 1 result, which not suprisingly was .

WillowTree,The fact is that there are fossils found in Precambrian strata. This is a fact that is covered in every freshman college geology text book. Go to a library and check one out.

Nothing in science is Proven... What I can say is Evolution is pretty DARN close to it! Most people who don't believe it are ignorant to the evidence... the rest that do know are either afraid to leave the religon or to stubburn to do it.

WILLOWTREE, "logidemicizing"..... Whaaaa? Are we on the same PLANET???I am hiding behind the facade of having evidence that contradicts your "quoted" claim. That you don't understand what is presented to you is no defence. I thought I had said it in plain English. What is your major malfunction, soldier? Multicellular organisms are found in Precambrian strata. This falsifies your claim. Get it now??? It IS that simple. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Strata that is relatively older than Cambrian strata contains multicellular fossils. No radiometric dating need be applied.How much easier do you want me to make it for you? You have references, both internet & from primary literature. Why are you even arguing?I concede English is my first language, & it may not be yours, which is the only reason you may be under the impression that there is any ambiguity to this issue. But an entire multicellular based fauna that existed before the Cambrian utterly falsifies your contention that there is no such thing as Precambrian multicellularity.How DARE you accuse me of hiding behind a facade because you are scientifically pig-ignorant! It is NOT my job to educate you to the level that you understand science.Good grief, you creationists really don't have any shame, do you?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Willow, you would do well to go to the library and get Life on a Young Planet by Andrew H Knoll. 250 pages, in English, on Precambrian fossils, with about 20 pages of references at the end.I know you likely won't bother to, but the rest of you non-paleontologists will likely enjoy it and learn as much as I did.

Coragyps,By a freaky coincidence that very book has just arrived & is awaiting my reading pleasure. Spooky!Mark

I appreciate all the posts related to mine. Thank you.I could use three things at this point:1) time to do some more reading so that I can present more clearly since I have not been able to make my (I believe) provable point about the elbow. I see books recommended here and will look into them. What I specifically need is a description of the evolutionary lineage of the salamander.2) a verification of my arithmetic on the oil point (I think my first calculation was wrong):((38,000,000,000,000 x 55 / 7.5 ) / 5280^3)^1/3 = 12.37 cu.mi. (of oil)My compost pile reduces to about 1/5 (or less) but I'll use 1/4 to complete this calculation. That much oil would then require 24.74 x 24.74 x 12.37 cu. mi. of vegetation (keeping precision for clarity - sorry)3) some respect:You (those who believe in evolution) are experts (or at least students) in your fields. I accept and respect that else I would not be here. When I am disrespectful, I hope you will call me on it.I am somewhat of an expert and surely a student in spirituality (not religion). My clear relationship with God (spirituality) is of great value to me. Please do not refer to me as ignorant or stubborn or afraid.Thank you,
Bob, et. al. (thanks, I like that)P.S. My real interest is quantum mechanics as it relates to encryption (thus the Bob, Alice, Eve) which is what originally brought me into this group. My son said he took a quantum mechanics course in the 6th grade (he's the one working on his Phd) and it is clear to him. I was hoping to get a little help here but will look for a primer instead. Any recommendations?

Hi BAE, About the only way you're going to get the detail you need on the bones issue is to get a copy of one of the textbooks that deal at that level. My personal favorite is Caroll's "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution" (WH Freeman, 1987), although that's preference born of familiarity rather than any specific "this 'uns better than that 'un" analysis. It's also a bit dated and he doesn't seem to like cladistics very much (I want to get Caroll's newer "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution").On the other bit about salamanders, I have some notes that I'll dig out and post (probably this afternoon if I get a chance) that cover the concensus phylogeny (evolutionary lineage) of modern salamanders - although you again need to remember that salamanders are NOT tetrapod "ancestors" or even necessarily representative of the basal tetrapod lineage. They are descendents of this ancestral form, just like every other amphibian on the planet including frogs etc., and include IIRC some 10 living and 4 extinct families of organisms in the Order Caudata (or sometimes called Urodela). That's not only a lot of critters, but it represents a lot of critters with vastly different morphologies - from newts to sirenians to true salamanders to hellbenders.If you want a more appropriate group of critters to research for your comparison, I would suggest the Dipnoi (lungfish). These little guys are some of the last living descendants (along with the Coelacanthinae) of the crosspterygian lineage - the critters that went walking. Comparisons are great - but make sure you're comparing the right things.I'll be happy to wait until you've done some more reading. I would, however, appreciate it if you'd address the points I raised in this and my previous post when you're ready.

You'll enjoy it Mark. Knoll's a great writer, and he presents an easily understandable review of what's known about the first 3 billion years of life on Earth. I really liked it.

Hi Quetzal,The pictures are grrrreat. When they popped up I said "Wow".I am working to correct my fishey-fish-to-salamander attempt at defining the problem. Evolution must be debated within the evolutionist's definitions. I accepted the time-lapse "movie" often shown on TV, which I am sure shows a fishey-fish turn into a salamander, as the evolutionist's definition and now stand corrected.I will review the lineage you suggested in message 21 by locating one of Carrol's books listed in message 41 (I have both titles written down at home).I am glad that we do agree that we are discussing Darwin's "thousands of changes over millions of years". I am also glad that we agree that the fishey-fish would have had a real struggle developing a leg (at least my foundational thought was correct).If this does not address your responses adequately then I look forward to your next request (that seems to be the correct word). I did not see a need for me to wait on responding until I do additional reading but I do reserve the right to revise - just in case.Very best regards,
BAE

Dear BAE,I appreciate your contribution for this topic (one of my favourite one). I would like to add something.It is possible that thousand modifications in a genetic pool were not sufficient to observe the rise of a new species. One fact is sure. This takes long time and more, if the ecospace is not perturbed. Honestly, I don't know how much genes must be changed to obtain a conclusive discrepancy between two tendencies within a given population.I guess it must be enormous and proportional to the complexity of the organism.
I study fishes. My fossil documentation is extensive but mostly reduced to ridiculously small organ of past fishes (teeth). My actual basis is 2,5 million year should probably be the average life-time for a species. I prefer not attempt to calculate the modified gene numbers during such period.Denesha[This message has been edited by Denesha, 03-18-2004]

No worries. I totally agree with what you said. TV and popular books often either overstate the case or go for the visual effect. I'm not against "dumbing down" concensus science to make it understandable and attractive, but this is often carried to far. You should see my wife and I yelling and throwing popcorn at the TV when my kids watch the PBS series "Walking with Dinosaurs" . (My kids love it, but my wife and I are shouting things like, "And you know this how exactly?" or "That's an unwarranted extrapolation you boobs".) A fun time is had by all. Great! They're both good, but I'd suggest the newer "Patterns and Processes". A lot of additional, more recent info is included. Hope you enjoy it, even if you don't accept the conclusions. Well, we certainly appear to be discussing the neodarwinian evolution idea, but I'm not sure I agree with the second part of your statement. If you'll refer to the last paragraph of my post #21, I think you'll see that I don't consider the gradual transition from crossopterygian fin-limb to tetrapod limb to be very problematic under that paradigm. In fact, if you go a bit further back in time to some of the earlier rhipidistian fish (from which the crossopterygians were derived), you'll see that even the "first stage" doesn't appear very difficult. See if you can find a picture of first, a Eusthenopteron and then a Panderichthys, and then look again at the Latimeria skeleton. Note as well that, although I suggested the Dipnoi, the living species of this family really don't have the right fin structure, so I retract my comparison suggestion. The closest living organism we can come at that may illustrate the transition from the rhipidistian fish to tetrapods is the coelacanth - but it wasn't THE transitional. That honor is reserved for the Eusthenopteron - Panderichthys - Acanthostega - Ichthyostega transition. By the time you get from the first to the last, you've gone from free-swimming fish to a fully-formed basal tetrapod with all the adaptations necessary for at least waddling about on dry land (I doubt it'd be winning any marathons). The transitions are in the nature of small, gradual adaptations over millions of years - from the early Devonian of Eusthenopteron to the Late Devonian of Ichthyostega.Hope this clarifies my position.