This seems to fit in this thread, if not, someone direct me to an appropriate one.
Can someone answer a few questions for me? I used to believe in ToE until I was challenged to provide actual physical proof of the evidence for evolution. Being unable to find any, I lost faith in the theory. ID seems very appealing to me.
I have been following a few of the threads here and I went to the Talk Origins site as suggested. Unfortunately I wasn’t very satisfied with the information provided as in the following examples: Taken from TALK. ORIGINS
The next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago (Gingerich and others 1983). Although it is known only from fragmentary skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales
Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)
When the synapsids are investigated further it seems as if there is serious disagreement as to what they actually are:
Evolutionists acknowledge that they cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals (Carroll, p. 398). That is why Roger Lewin (1981), summarizing a scientific conference on the matter, wrote: The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.
The best Carroll (p. 410) can say is that [i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet (emphasis mine). However, as Carroll (p. 392) points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.
This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll (p. 392) writes, Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic. There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of advanced cynodonts from the Upper Triassic (Carroll, p. 624). It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.
The following is from another website claiming to provide proof of transitional forms, by GR Morton.
378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508).
[Did someone say something about the scientific method?]
-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)
368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod. This creature also shows the coronoid fangs of the Panderichthys but they were also smaller than the panderichthyid fangs. Daeschler notes that this animal also has the parasymphysial fans of a tetrapod. (Daeschler, 2000, p. 307)
As you can see, in almost every example there is only fragmentary evidence or just the critical features necessary for "proof" are missing.
When I examine evidence like this I am not convinced. Much similar verbiage was printed about the coelacanth and it was almost universally accepted by evolutionists as having transitional features until live ones were discovered and dissected, revealing none of the previously known proto limbs .My question about fossil evidence is then: Does any verifiable fossil evidence exist for transitional forms? In one of the first posts on this thread it was again asserted there are some.
I also noted that the Talk. Origins site stated that there were very few pre Cambrian fossils, yet most of the literature I have found states that the pre Cambrian is rich with fossils, which is true?
Regarding age dating, I recently read a paper that described a potassium argon dating test that was well documented. Lava rock formed less than 10 years before the test at Mt. St. Helens was dated at 250, 000 to 3,000,000 years old. Why should radioactive half life dating be assumed as accurate with results like these?
I found this quote from one of the posters on this site;[not this thread]
What hypothesis has any proponent of ID ever stated AND tested? You see, that’s another component of the scientific method. The hypotheses must be testable. That is to say, you must design a repeatable experiment based on the hypotheses (including the null) and see if your idea is supported, or if it shown to be false. (And also keep in mind that we do not refer to something as a theory after a few simple experiments, even if they do support our hypotheses.
If this statement is true about ID, then is it also true about ToE? If there has been a repeatable experiment designed, where would I find it documented? I don’t see how a finch beak that gets fractionally longer one year and fractionally shorter the next year proves anything as it could be a result of a nutritional change. The ring species argument seems analogous to stating that if Lucy Liu won’t mate with me then she must be a new species.
I haven’t really seen a good response to the question that If evolution is an ongoing process, why don’t we see evidence of it today? Could someone clear up these things for me? Thanks in advance for your responses.
™ Version 4.2