Has evolution been proven ?

WILLOWTREE, Temper!Allow me. You asserted via quote (& rather rudely ask neil to put it in his own words! The pot calling the kettle black, no?) that no multicellular Precambrian fossils existed. The Ediacaran fauna appears in the Precambrian & is multicellular. This completely shows your assertion via quote to be false.You are wrong, neil is right. Don't get arsey about it.As far as I'm aware, the oldest undisputed multicellular animals are worms dating from 700-900 mya Pararenicola & Protoarenicola. These are cylindrical, segmented organisms with a differentiated bulbous ends (Sun 1986 & 1994).Fossilised multicellular algae exists in the Precambrian, but it IS multicellular. It is differentiating the potential animals from the algae that is the problem, yet the fact remains; multicellular fossils exist in the Precambrian.Mark[edited......that's 700-900 mya][This message has been edited by mark24, 03-16-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

neil,Willow does have a point re post 24. You posted a bare link, something that we battle hard to stop creationists doing (& is against forum guidelines). Had you of posted a short paragraph supported by your link, you would have been pretty much perfect.Mark

WILLOWTREE, "logidemicizing"..... Whaaaa? Are we on the same PLANET???I am hiding behind the facade of having evidence that contradicts your "quoted" claim. That you don't understand what is presented to you is no defence. I thought I had said it in plain English. What is your major malfunction, soldier? Multicellular organisms are found in Precambrian strata. This falsifies your claim. Get it now??? It IS that simple. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Strata that is relatively older than Cambrian strata contains multicellular fossils. No radiometric dating need be applied.How much easier do you want me to make it for you? You have references, both internet & from primary literature. Why are you even arguing?I concede English is my first language, & it may not be yours, which is the only reason you may be under the impression that there is any ambiguity to this issue. But an entire multicellular based fauna that existed before the Cambrian utterly falsifies your contention that there is no such thing as Precambrian multicellularity.How DARE you accuse me of hiding behind a facade because you are scientifically pig-ignorant! It is NOT my job to educate you to the level that you understand science.Good grief, you creationists really don't have any shame, do you?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Coragyps,By a freaky coincidence that very book has just arrived & is awaiting my reading pleasure. Spooky!Mark

BobAliceEve, There's a fundamental logical flaw at the root of your argument; untestability. It is perfectly logical to form a hypothesis based upon the existence of everything that God did it. But this as it stands has an explanatory power of zero. Why? I could just as easily say the existence of everything popped into existence five minutes ago as is. The problem is that we have to turn our as yet untested hypotheses into tested ones, & therein lies the rub. There is no observation that we can make that favours our hypotheses over any other.I may as well claim that God made some objects but not others, or that God exists but created nothing. Both of those statements are as good as the one that claims "because things exist, God must have made them". They are unsupported & meaningless.There is a reason religions are considered faith based. Well let's have this evidence of God, then!The fact is, that you have no logically sound evidence that supports your contention. Yet anyone can make a logically sound argument based upon borne out predictions in favour of evolution.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-30-2004]

CreationMan, What scientifically accepted facts do you base your acceptance of common ancestry on?Mark

Creationman, All you've admitted is that dogs reproduce, let me be more specific;
do you think all canines (foxes, wolves, etc) had a common ancestor?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-04-2004]