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

Why is this a problem at all?There is nothing saying that a group has to die out. There is nothing saying, even, that a species must go extinct. However, it would be astonishing if the coelacanth was the same species over that period of time. It is not. It is a close relative of the extinct species but is not even the same genus.I don't recall clearly any creationist arguements but I think one talked as if a species had to go extinct. This is wrong (though it would be surprising as I said) and it is wrong because they don't even have the genus of the extant fish right. It is a small pretty typical example of the kind of very, very careless junk that is claimed as a "problem" for the ToE."None" of the modifications? Have you looked at the "fins"? They are a line that is a relative of those which did take the evolutionary path to amphibians but not, as far as I know, supposed to be "on their way" anywhere. The branch went it's own way for 100's of Myrs. Why is this a problem?It would be helpful if you would describe the precise problem that is supposed to be here.

I didn't know those things about the monotremes! They are a missing link in their own right! Alive now! At least that is my biased reading of what the first page of your link is saying.

I've been trying to think of a real problem. Something which bothers me and I hope will be resolved in the next decades is the lack of specific predictive power.The ToE is able to predict the general nature of outcomes of the evolutionary process. What we can not do it predict what specific path will be taken by an organism under specific selection.When (if?) we understand the entire genome and all it phenological effects will we be able to predict (perhaps through brute force simulation) where an organism is most likely to move under specific selective pressure? That would be very powerful.I'm afraid though it is a bit like the 3 body( and more) problem in physics. We can approximate very well but not be precise. Is this true in biology but much, much more so? We can't have a "simple" (2 body like) ecosystem can we?

I don't understand what you are saying.What I'm asking for is a situation with a bunch of rats (say) in a moderately complex but still lab environment. I want to change the environment and predict down to the genes what set of changes will evolve. I want to produce probabilities for the various possible outcomes. Asking a lot I know.

Yes, I think that is what I'm talking about. The fact that mutations are random doesn't matter. I think that there is at least a chance that Gould was wrong in some of his contingency idea. At least for a short period of evolutionary time.What I mean is that given a starting position and specific selective pressures then what mutations will happen is random but which ones will survive are a very, very small subset of all that will happen. I would guess that there are frequently only a few paths that are open to respond to the selective pressures. So a stochastic answer is possible.However, there might be some dependency on the order in which the surviving type mutations occur. Maybe we can simple never get this far but I would like to see that answered over the next 50 years.

You speak of integrity? You, who posted a bunch of unsupported claims about the GP and when one is specifically shown to be false just cut and run from the debate.How dare you speak of integrity!

So we are all agreed that the LLM claim was false?If that is the case we can move onto another one. Ok? There was the list in post 400 back in the orginal thread. Shall we do the LLP next? It's your turn to supply numbers. Maybe you'd rather do the land area one next. You pick. You supply numbers and we'll show them to be wrong just like the LLM. It's fun.Now did you want a thread started or reopened?

So are are all agreed that the LLM claim was false?If so, we can move on to another item. It's your turn to supply numbers, you pick one. If you don't want to open a thread I'll start one up for you. This is fun!

This is total BS willowtree of just the sort that you have posted over and over again.Care to attempt to back this up?

Wasn't he the one demonstarted to be very wrong about the Thylacine?And his name isn't very helpful. You need to give his paper that discusses the actual evidence and why he makes this conjecture.You seem to have trouble with the sources you pick. They are long on assertion and short on back up.

But the evidence is there. The fossils are there. After that we can talk about interpretation. Once there is some actual evidence that both sides can look at then both sides must give their reasons (in great detail) for why they think there interpretation is right.Your posts seem to have a problem supplying any real evidence beyond assertions. Note that some of us are still waiting for the measurments done by your source on the LLM for example. In the GP as a hole we didn't get why the particular measurements were done in the way they apparantly were. That is the kind of source you seem all to willing to use.It is beginning to appear that your souce actually did NOT measure the so-called LLM at all! It was simply an unsupported assertion by that source. On the other hand we gave you precise details of how our measurements were done that would allow you to duplicate them to check them out.This is, in a simple way, why some sources are considered "good" and some "not-so-good".This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-09-2004 05:57 AM

Please supply the details of the calculations that Milton or White made of brain / body mass ratio and show his comparison to modern humans.This is, remember, the Milton who made up false statments about the Thylacine skulls. I'm not inclinded to trust someone who has been demonstrated to be unreliable. I don't know why you would be.This is, WT, exactly like Rutherford's (that's who it was wasn't it? ) claim about the LLM. He was wrong and supplied no numbers.You've given up on that yet you continue to use poor quality sources.You seem to have trouble grasping why anyone would have trouble believing people who are so inclinded to get things so wrong.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-15-2004 06:31 PM

You can make all sorts of statments when you actually know something about what you are talking about. It is pretty clear that your knowledge of genetics ( a rather complex subject ) is zero.