Sorry buddy, we can do brain reseach, we can put our hands on it, probe it,
image it, slice it, drug it, etc., and WE KNOW that it works and that must
have certain connections. Respecfully I must tell you that your analogy is flawed.
> > According to Darwinism, we should find *not* 10 or 100 or
> >even a 1000 fossils that resemble evolution. We should find tens or hundreds
> >of thousands gradually chnafing life forms ............ but there are just not
> >"enough" *transitional* (?) forms to prove lineage.
>
> This is an entirely outdated view of how biologists view mutation. It was
> Darwin's view, but Darwin was wrong. Consider the mutation which causes six
> fingers. Where are the 1000s of transitional forms between the five-digit
> individual and the six-digit individual. Where are the partially developed
> fingers? Horses even today are occasionally born with three digits on their
> limbs. There are no transitional forms. They either have 3 or they have 1.
> There is no form with 1.5 toes.
Sorry again, this is not evolution, just mutation. Antennapedia in not
evolution either, a gene mislocation just puts the legs were the antennas
should go. A gene shuffle, that's all.
> >Each "species" (the
> >definition of what a species is is currently evolving§) seems to appear fully
> >developed and highly complex, the explanations for this fact are used as
> >excuses. Science is not about scientirrific accounts of what may have
> >happened, but about data and facts that point with a high degree of convincing
> >evidences (w/o excuses) to a theory that accurately explains the data and
> >facts may have happened (it does not really explained what actually happened).
> > So, in affirming trans-speciation with the limited data we now have is a
> >dis-service (in my opinion) to science as much as affirming that
> >trans-speciation have not occurred because the bible says so (when it
> >doesn't).
>
> Considering that we have observed species arising in historical times, I
> would certainly say that trans-speciation is an ongoing process. Consider this:
>
> "At the margin of Lake Victoria, in Uganda, there sits a
> small body of water called Lake Nabugabo that has an areal extent
> of some fifteen miles. The smaller lake obviously formed from
> the larger one when a sand spit grew across a channel that
> formerly united the two bodies of water. Radiocarbon dating of
> fossil plant material in the spit shows that Nabugabo was
> separated from the parent lake approximately four thousand years
> ago. Within Lake Nabugabo are, five species of cichlid fishes
> unknown from Lake Victoria or any other locality in the world." ~Steven M.
> Stanley, "Evolution of Life: Evidence for a New Pattern", Great
> Ideas Today, 1983, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1983), p.
> 22
Again, this sounds like adaptacion or microevolution, the fish continues to be
a fish.
> For the creationist who thinks that carbon 14 dating dates things
> too old, the problem is even greater. It means that the
> speciation has occurred in even a shorter time.
>
> glenn
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
Bye Glenn, I'm really learning a lot from you, although I must confess that it
bothers me a bit that you have embraced evolution *prematurely*, IMHO. If
evolution is the answer I'll embrace it too, but not basing my convertion on
scientific dogmatism.
Eduardo