Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

I'll allow the biologist to address the issues in the beginning part of your reply, and instead focus on correcting a bit of misinformation in the middle to end portions: No, it doesn't. The 2ndLoT describes the behavior of energy, and information is not energy. There is no law of information conservation, and there is no law that says all information degrades into less information.BTW - do us a favor and supply us with your definition of "information." Show me these calculations. False dichotomy. Those are not the only two options. How "impossible" is the evolution model, exactly? Please support your statement with a presentation of your beginning assumptions and subsequent calculations. That's about as nonsensical as saying that for God, a circle is a square, or bachelors are married, or up is down, etc...

So, then, according to you, how does DNA replication not violate the 2ndLoT? Obviously DNA replication is the creation of a highly ordered piece of matter from many smaller disordered constituent parts. If DNA always degraded, this shouldn't happen, right? As I suspected, these calculations focus on a specific outcome presuming that the observed outcome was the only possible one. It's not a valid argument against something like evolution.Let me illustrate:I have in my hand a deck of cards. I'm going to turn over a card:4 of hearts.The probability of that card turning up is 1 in 52. Now, I'll turn over another:Q of diamonds.The probability of that card turning up is 1 in 51, and the probability of both cards turning up as they have is 1 in (52 x 51).Now, I'll keep turning cards over until the entire deck is laid out in series, and calculate the probability of that order. As should be obvious, it is 1 in (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 .... x 3 x 2 x 1) or about 8.1 x 10⁶⁷.As it just so happens, I have 9 more decks of cards here with me, and I'll proceed to do just the same with each of these decks, and calculate the probability that they all end up as they do. Obviously, if we can calculate the probability of the order of one deck, we can simply multiply those probabilities together for each deck, so we bascially have:(8.1 x 10⁶⁷)¹⁰ = (8.1)¹⁰ x (10⁶⁷)¹⁰ = 1215766545.910569 x 10⁶⁷⁰ = 1.2 x 10⁶⁷⁹If I had used 100 decks, the probability would be 1 in 1.2 x 10⁶⁷⁹⁰.Your argument is basically saying that it should be impossible for 5200 cards to come up in the order in which I find them when I finish because the odds are so obviously against it. Yet it would take me just about 1 hour to lay out 5200 cards from 100 decks and I would prove you wrong.If I can acheive such a statistically unlikely event in only an hour, what do you think nature could accomplish in 4.5 billion years? Panspermia, for one. That and the fact that the "from nothing" part of your original dichotomy is not necessarily the case. BZZT! Logical error: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. It's not acceptible for you to make a false statement simply because someone else has.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-20-2004][This message has been edited by ::, 01-20-2004]