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

You seem to be the typical creationist who ignores the facts and repeats their assertions....bump of last post that the fish have changed a lot contrary to your assertion.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 26;96(22):12616-20. Related Articles, LinksTwo living species of coelacanths?Holder MT, Erdmann MV, Wilcox TP, Caldwell RL, Hillis DM.Section of Integrative Biology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA. mtholder@mail.utexas.eduDuring the period of September 1997 through July 1998, two coelacanth fishes were captured off Manado Tua Island, Sulawesi, Indonesia. These specimens were caught almost 10,000 km from the only other known population of living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae, near the Comores. The Indonesian fish was described recently as a new species, Latimeria menadoensis, based on morphological differentiation and DNA sequence divergence in fragments of the cytochrome b and 12S rRNA genes. We have obtained the sequence of 4,823 bp of mitochondrial DNA from the same specimen, including the entire genes for cytochrome b, 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, four tRNAs, and the control region. The sequence is 4.1% different from the published sequence of an animal captured from the Comores, indicating substantial divergence between the Indonesian and Comorean populations. Nine morphological and meristic differences are purported to distinguish L. menadoensis and L. chalumnae, based on comparison of a single specimen of L. menadoensis to a description of five individuals of L. chalumnae from the Comores. A survey of the literature provided data on 4 of the characters used to distinguish L. menadoensis from L. chalumnae from an additional 16 African coelacanths; for all 4 characters, the Indonesian sample was within the range of variation reported for the African specimens. Nonetheless, L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis appear to be separate species based on divergence of mitochondrial DNA.

quote:

---

Evos are declaring hominind evolution based upon an admitted paucity of fossil evidence - which is fine. I only ask that you treat ancient Israel the same - thats all.

---

There is also overwhelming DNA evidence that modern apes and humans share common ancestory, including HERV's, pseudogenes, and chromosomal fusions. Add to this the numerous fossil finds and the evidence is actually not as slim as creationists put forth.

quote:

---

You are proven inconsistent - loyal to selective evidence.

---

What positive evidence suggests that humans and modern apes did not share a common ancestor?

Hi Arach:Your dismissal of the Bible as evidence is only done because it disproves your sacred cows. Message 172 and its quotes substantiating the fact that hominid evolution is based upon a paucity of physical evidence. If hominid evolution was true then there would be fossils in existence ad nauseum.My quotes are airtight which means your assertions are howling monkey rage.If hominind evolution is a fact based upon very little evidence then the same reason for the paucity accounts for the alleged lack of Hebrew bones in said areas. IOW, only fossil objects is evidence. You are like a small child who needs a toy for christmas and not a book. IOW, if you objectively studied the issues of ancient Israel you would know that evidence is not always some artefact as many historical places exist which produce zero tangible objects. Archaeology is not a full proof science but you ignorantly think it to be God.Who says homo habilis is a missing link ?Biased evos = no evidence.Only if you say so.In fact homo habilis has been reevaluated to be descendants of known pygmie peoples of Zaire/Mbuti pygmies who have an average height of 4 ft. 6 inches.And your dating of these asserted to be whatever you say they are is proven completely unreliable:http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions -->http://EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions -->EvC Forum: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions< !--UE--> Edit: punctuation corrections.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-30-2004 03:02 PM

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

Don't you find it amusing how Willowtree keeps using those same two quotes, despite having them been debunked already, by people pointing out that "few" in the context of hominid evolution means "only several thousand specimens"? It is few in comparison to fossils in general, mind you, but that won't stop Willowtree.I also love his excellent choice of non-authoritative sources and unquantified quantities as authoritative sources with definite quantities. Furthermore, I love the interspersed insults. They give his posts flavor. My favorite was the one in which he referred to scientists as ghoulish conjurers.It brings back memories. I remember learning all of that, back in debate class - "Always refer to your opponents in terms of idiocy, mysticism, and the undead." Also "Never state anything without an assault on their character" and "Once you've stated your sources, no matter how questioned they might be, never give any further corroborating evidence, no matter how hard you are pressed for it."

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

i'm christian, not hindu.my dismissal of the bible as evidence comes from the following facts:
1. i've read the bible, and understand it as a piece of literature.
2. i'm into archaeology, paleontology, and geology
3. i've studied the history of the bible.but if we're gonna use the bible as evidence for itself, let's get a couple of things straight. first, my unanswered question:according to genesis, which came first: people or animals? i've posted three so far. here's an australopithecus africanus. let me know when you become ad-nauseated. you're quotes are out of context, and poorly understood. link have been posted showing how they are not air tight. asserting that you're right does not make your point valid. the score is 4 to nothing. feel free to post one. you were the one that claimed the evidence was paucitous. i'm posting evidence. now your claim is that we don't need evidence in favor for a book shown to have flaws and not accurately represent history? who's giving the sweetheard pass now? i have evidence for hominid evolution. where's your evidence for hebrews in egypt?but ok. i'll give you a break. instead of showing me bones or artifacts, show me a book that says the hebrews were in egypt, other than the bible. preferably an egyptian one. it's called outside verification. you won't give me my toys, give me another book. one isn't good enough. no, i don't. i think yhwh to be god, and the ONLY one at that.get this through your skull: i am a christian. calling me a heathen and saying i worship false gods only makes you look stupid. i worship the same god you do. if you can't deal with that, that's not my problem.no, archaeology isn't a "full proof" science. nothing is. but SOME evidence would be nice. i sure didn't. it's a found link. you're the one saying it's missing. i'm willing to be proven wrong. show me evidence backing the exodus. documentation?here's habilis on the left, sapiens (cromagnon) on the right. look at the size of the brain-case in comparison to facial features, and the pronouncement of eye-brow ridges. this look fully human to you? that's real good proof. and besides, even if the isotopes are wrong, which they are not, they're still in an order geologically that seems to be in favor of evolution. you forgot one: repeating yourself doesn't make you right. jesus even said so. your points have been refuted, yet you don't answer the refutations, or the questions we ask, and keep posting the same misquotes. do you really no read our posts? you certainly don't answer our questions.i'll be happy if you tell me whether animals cam before or after people.

We have been over this. It is for you to demonstrate that thier was no change to maintain the fish. You are the ones making the remarable claim. Of coarse you can't do it. Its a past event and can't be repeatable.
Rob

What's your point. You offered old news.
Rob

Robert, pay attention! We're going to go through this step by step.Point 1: The Coelacanth order was alive when the fossils were created, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 2: The Coelacanth order is alive today, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 3: Therefore the Coelacanth order must have been alive all during the period from fossil creation until today, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 4: In order for the Coelacanth order to survive during the period between fossil creation and today, it must have had survivable habitats all during that period, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 5: A survivable habitat for the Coelacanth order is deep, cold ocean off continental shelves, right? Please answer yes or no.Point 6: Therefore deep, cold ocean off continental shelves must have been available between fossil creation and today, right? Please answer yes or no.--Percy

I will answer yes to all points 1 thru 6
Rob

My source for the evidence which you like to ignore is atheist and Mensa member Richard Milton.

In agreeing with points 1 through 6 you contradict yourself in Message 187: Let me state this clearly. Points 1 through 6 show that a viable environment for the Coelacanth order *must* have been available during the entire period from fossil creation until today. But your Message 187 expresses extreme skepticism that this could be so.Let's play a game similar to H-O-R-S-E, except it's called R-E-M-E-D-I-A-L. You've got an R.--Percy

We don't do "debate by reference" here. We'll give you an "R", too.--Percy

The following quotes were lifted from "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells [2000]: IOW, paleoanthropologists are storytellers who insert a paucity of disputed fossil evidence into "preexisting narrative structures." The authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia does not match the fanatical boasting of the rank and file.This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a purported lack of the same type of physical evidence.Multiplied billions and billions of human beings yet the yield of evidence for human evolution could fit into a small box =equals= the basis from which a vocal minority floods the world with this myth of human evolution.What is obvious to deduce from these facts is a desparate attempt of a certain worldview to validate its main assertion that a universal God does not exist.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-05-2004 08:18 PM

You forgot the attribute "wacko."