Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

That is "unchanged" by your definition? Seriously?Wow, what would you define as "changed"?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'm amazed that everyone has let RB get away with this line thusfar:Yes when we are being told of 65 million years and all that time is used and needed to be used to explain the present ape from slug.
This is unchanged and so the reason for its fame.That's an incredibly awful straw man. Apes never evolved from slugs. 65 million years ago, apes looked like this:If you want, I can show you what they looked like at every step of the way in-between.65 million years ago, slugs looked like they look now. Apes and slugs are diverged somewhere between 600 million and a billion years ago (it's hard to know for sure, because small invertebrates don't fossilize well; the vertebrate-invertebrate diversion was around 600 MYA, but there's no way to know when the exact split between the routes that would lead to slugs and the one to apes would occur).

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

What on earth are you talking about? Do you even understand the most basic facets of the ToE?Things Change In A Way That Optimizes To A Given Niche.You understand this, right?Well, if the niche doesn't change, what is the effect?
(Insert Answer Here)Secondly, something you keep ignoring: The creature *HAS* changed.You very strangely seem to expect some sort of constant change to be going on, like some sort of robot constantly ripping off pieces of its body and welding them on elsewhere. Evolution is an *optimization problem*. The best creatures in their current niche survive, and the ones that do poorly die. If the niche doesn't change, the only *possible* result is eventual stagnation.What about this do you not understand?Perhaps you should download an evolution simulation program like Framsticks and play around with it for a bit, so that you can see what I'm talking about in real-time. Simulate with optimization of a particular criterea. You'll see two things:A) Punctuated equilibrium
B) A falloff in changes over time.Then, when the creatures seem to be changing very little any more, change the optimization criterea (a niche change). Watch how radically the creatures change again, and then, over time, watch as it falls off again.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I know slugs to apes is not in books

---

Then don't say it. I'm not here to make a straw man of your position; don't do the same to me. Would you appreciate it if I started saying "Yeah, just like how Jesus flew into Jerusalem using his magic wand" or things like that?

quote:

---

you didn't respond to the discussion only to the slug thing

---

Other people were discussing it. What exactly would you like my response on?

quote:

---

Say since you think this creature in the picture led to the ape have any evidence other then reading the ideas of someone else in a book

---

First off, this isn't "the ideas of someone else". This is the collective accumulation of all data uncovered by all archaeology in recorded history. Do you want transitionals and the dates that they were dated to? Note that most of these have many different specimens known. Some, unfortunately, are from regions in which fossils are poorly preserved, so we only got fragments. Even still, there's plenty there:Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene) -- Very primitive plesiadapids. To modern eyes they looks nothing like primates, being simply pointy-faced, small early mammals with mostly primitive teeth, and claws instead of nails. But they show the first signs of primate-like teeth; lost an incisor and a premolar, and had relatively blunt-cusped, squarish molars.
Cantius (early Eocene) -- One of the first true primates (or "primates of modern aspect"), more advanced than the plesiadapids (more teeth lost, bar behind the eye, grasping hand & foot) and beginning to show some lemur-like arboreal adaptations.
Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene) -- Primitive lemur-like primates.
Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (late Eocene, Burma) -- Very early Old World primates known only from fragments. Larger brain, shorter nose, more forward-facing eyes (halfway between plesiadapid eyes and modern ape eyes).
Parapithecus (early Oligocene) -- The O.W. monkeys split from the apes split around now. Parapithecus was probably at the start of the O.W. monkey line. From here the O.W. monkeys go through Oreopithecus (early Miocene, Kenya) to modern monkey groups of the Miocene & Pliocene.
Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) -- From the same time as Parapithecus, but probably at the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5- cusped teeth, etc.).
Aegyptopithecus (early-mid Oligocene, Egypt) -- Slightly later anthropoid (ape/hominid) with more ape features. It was a fruit-eating runner/climber, larger, with a rounder brain and shorter face.
Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.) -- A sexually dimorphic, fruit-eating, arboreal quadruped probably ancestral to all the later apes and humans. Had a mosaic of ape-like and primitive features; Ape-like elbow, shoulder and feet; monkey- like wrist; gibbon-like lumbar vertebrae.
Limnopithecus (early Miocene, Africa) -- A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons.
Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene) -- A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes divided into two lines:
Sivapithecus (including "Gigantopithecus" & "Ramapithecus", mid- Miocene) -- Moved to Asia & gave rise to the orangutan.
Kenyapithecus (mid-Miocene, about 16 Ma) -- Stayed in Africa & gave rise to the African great apes & humans.
Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.
One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.Don't just look at these brief descriptions - google the fossil names. You can get a lot of information about the structure of the fossils involved, which will help you understand how clear of a transition we're talking about. Also, please be aware of the signicance of the layers that they were from (*consistantly*), and the associated dating (which, of course, matches). From each step to the next, we watch slow changes in the tooth structure and arrangement, ridges form and subside, socket sizes and positions change, bone thicknesses change, etc, all in a slow progression (and that's just the skulls!).This message has been edited by Rei, 09-13-2004 04:42 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Robert:You are trying to say that such a change cannot occur. This raises the question: Why? I don't want your personal incredulity: Demonstrate a physical reason why *that niche* would change. Otherwise, you haven't presented *anything*.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'm getting tired of the vagueness.Robert Byers - this is a direct challenge:STATE what you expect to change about deep-sea environments. I will be awaiting your response, which I expect to occur shortly.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I don't believe such changes happened in 6'ooo years.

---

I'm not asking you about 6000 years. I'm asking you about several hundred million years. You know that.

quote:

---

Toe is requiring stability of fish by way of stability of ocean.

---

... in a given region in a given time.

quote:

---

Its so long to have a stable ocean floor when all else is brecking up and massive destruction and extinction that the picture requires a faith without foundation.

---

Exactly what theory do you postulate in which the entire bottom of the ocean breaks up at once? After the bottom of the ocean breaks up in a given region, how different do you expect this region to be than before it broke up?This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 03:24 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

As I posted to you in another thread:

quote:

---

I was talking about human transitionals, which by volume in existence amount to a foot locker full.

---

Go ahead - fit the remains of over 500 neanderthals alone into a shoebox. Certainly *some species* only have a few known fossils, but about half of the 2-3 dozen species have quite a few fossils.

quote:

---

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

​

"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence we have of hominid evolution."

---

Don't tell me you're going to bring us into another episode of "Tales of Creationist Quotes!" Here's your debunkingThis message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 08:50 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

(removed - if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. perhaps if someone started up a willowtree thread. )This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 09:49 PM

quote:

---

Evolutionists have admittedly pronounced as fact based upon a scant paucity of disputed evidence.

---

How many times do I have to ask you whether you consider more than 500 neanderthal individuals' remains, a fair number of them complete, to be such "a scant paucity". And please state what is disputed about them. And this is just neanderthals alone - do we need to get into some of the other 30+ fossil hominid species? Yes, about half of those species only have a few fossils. Many, however, have a large number of fossils.

quote:

---

Your halloween movie prop picture can be and is asserted to be whatever you evos say it is.

---

Cite a single case of two scientists that believe in evolution who have stated that it is something different from what the other scientist says. Just one case. As a note, I will hound you on this one until you either cite such a case, or publicly drop the claim.

quote:

---

Its age is arbitrarily changed annually.

---

Cite a single case of its estimated age changing by any relevant amount. Just one case. As a note, I will hound you on this one until you either cite such a case, or publicly drop the claim.

quote:

---

Common sense says nobody can objectively determine that a said object is millions of years old

---

You know, I don't give a flying flip about your "argument from personal incredulity". Either address the techniques involved in dating it, or publicly drop the claim.

quote:

---

Evos cannot even recognize Biblical evidence in the thousands of years in age

---

Funny, because you can't seem to present any. Arachnophilia presented you with a simple challenge: He shows you a fossil hominid (something from a population several million years ago which evolved in places that we have to guess at to find) for every hebrew artifact from the Exodus (something from a huge number of people supposedly a few thousand years ago) that you present. You haven't presented a single one. Now, why is that? Please answer.

quote:

---

yet they suddenly can matter of factly determine bits of bones to be in the millions.

---

Once again: Address the techniques in the proper thread, or publicly concede the point.

quote:

---

Yet we have a physical structure in Egypt which decimates the atheist worldview (Great Pyramid)

---

Go back to your pyramidology thread; you have about a dozen points that are open that you need to challenge.

quote:

---

Hominind evolution is based upon virtually nothing.

---

Yeah, if you call "virtually nothing" several hundred thousand man hours and tens of thousands of bones of thousands of individuals. You have an interesting concept of "virtually nothing", you know that?

quote:

---

Any paucity of evidence within the sweetheart realm of evolutionary myths

---

When are you going to present what this "paucity of evidence is"?Willowtree, I grow weary of your vagueness. This is, again, another direct challenge: Put Up Or Shut Up.

quote:

---

The only evidence I need for the Exodus is the book of Exodus.

---

That explains an awful lot.

quote:

---

The authors of the Bible are honest reporters

---

When did you meet them to assess their credibility? If you want to assess their credibility based on evidence, you need to present the evidence, something you keep refusing to do.

quote:

---

whereas the wizards of evolution are a ghoulish patchwork glueing together scraps of bones.

---

When did you meet them to assess their credibility? If you want to assess their credibility based on evidence, you need to present the evidence, something you keep refusing to do.

quote:

---

The evo god is quadrupeds/created things which is sin like the Exodus text above says.

---

No, the god of the vast majority of believers of evolution in the US is YHVH.

quote:

---

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

---

Oh really?"I proved the existence of God. I am probably the only person in the history of the Internet to incorporate all the evidence and their correct explanations in proving the existence of God."This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2004 02:55 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I responded to almost everything in your post - I even put your words in quote boxes. Now, respond to my post.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Either cite *specifically* how I was misrepresenting you, or respond to my post. I'm not going to let you get away with what you keep on doing here by refusing to present specifics despite repeated attempts for them; I mean, for god's sake, you're even refusing to present specifics in your explanation for why you're not responding to my post asking for specifics!

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

1. I did not summon the admin; they came on their own, and quite justly.2. The first quote that you cited was already debunked by Arachnophilia in message 135. You only responded to his debunking with a non sequitur. How dare you bring the quote back up without addressing his debunking, and then refuse to answer my entire post because I didn't basically repeat what he said again?The second quote was from an evc poster who isn't here to debate. That evc poster didn't provide a reference either. What, do you want me to argue with a wall?Is that your only excuse for not responding to my post? That I didn't cover every single line of your post? You're covering zero lines of my post!. *And*, you complained about my post being too long as it is!I want a response to my post.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2004 04:37 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Willowtree: You're posting on this thread, but you keep refusing to respond to my post., despite numerous requests. Do so.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

As I said on paper point 4 could work. However in reality it is unreasonable indeed impossible.

---

And yet, you are yet to present a single reason. I think we all tire of this. Please, either present a reason, or quit asserting that. The question is this:*What* do you expect to change about the environment (an environment that stretches across a good portion of the planet), and why?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."