Comments on: Fossil Shows Fish Evolving Surf-To-Turf

Skull, Shoulders And Pelvis Found Of Most Primitive 4-Legged Creature In History

[nic1234567-2009]

People, remember that the tetrapods and worms and bacteria... all life, according to evolution... came from "rain on the rocks".

Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008

You%u2019re confusing evolution with Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from non-lie. Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It has nothing to do with how life started. As far as the origin of life on Earth there have been several hypotheses proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism first) and the RNA world hypothesis (genetics first).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

[shaggydo-2009]

nic1234567
I''m don''t follow your arguement. There is no truely solid physical evidence of ''time'' because it is a part of our concept of existance, but I believe it exists the same as I believe evolution exists. God can also be thought of as a concept of part of our existance. Because you have some evidence of evolution does not make it so.

[nopacifism2]

and as far as the Creator Himself is concerned jon2012, He made His appearance on earth 2,000 years ago in Israel. Perhaps you''ve heard of Him, His name is Jesus Christ

[nopacifism2]

Creationism, because it is unsupported by evidence,
posted by jon2012

Jon, God''s Magnificent Creation is all around you. Look in the mirror at your own unique design and then step outside for once and look up at the universe and this magnificent earth.

God has made it too easy for you. You just refuse to believe in Him because of humanism.

[jon2012-2009]

Wow! They extrapolated all this from an entire skull! Usually, they make their fictions with much, much less.

People, remember that the tetrapods and worms and bacteria... all life, according to evolution... came from "rain on the rocks".

Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008

Darwin''s evolution is a product of the same scientific method that gave us a universe in which we occupy but a small part and the earth revolving around a star, the vaccines and antibiotics, the atomic bomb, DNA, stem-cell therapy, etc. You think this is fiction? Is that what you want to teach American kids?

On the other hand, what does the Bible tell us. That eating shellfish is an abomination. Anything else? Something I can use here and now?

[nic1234567-2009]

What is not true about the statement? If there is such proof that completely rules the other out, then present the irrefutable proof that rules out one but not the other. I would like to know. If you have such knowledge and do not share it then shame on you! Because you and you alone are the only one who does possess such knowledge. Posted by shaggydo

I guess it depends on your definition of irrefutable. I guess if simply ignore the volumes of evidence supporting evolution and claim it not true then you can claim you%u2019re refuting it. However if you don%u2019t provide any physical evidence that can be scientifically verified to back up your counter claim then shame on you?

[docpeter-2009]

One thing I would like to comment on here is that All genetic mutations are not passed on to future generations. Some are deletorius (hope I spelled that right). Some genetic mutations simply won''t support life. Some cause the progeny to die prior to reproduction.

Some are passed on after reproduction, but later cause harm or death to the individual possessing them. One such case is Sickle Cell Anemia. This mutation occurred as a response to malaria in Eastern Africa. Individuals with the trait didn''t die from malaria, once infected, but those without the trait did. This mutation proved favorable for those that possessed it in the malaria prone regions and, hence, was passed onto their progeny. It is however unfavorable to the individual that possesses it.

[jon2012-2009]

Neither the creationist not the darwinians have irrefutable proof that rules out the other yet they both do so. Posted by shaggydo

That''s essentially correct. It''s a question of probability. Darwinian evolution has a high probability of being true, better than 95%, and conversely, creationism has a low probability of being true, less than 0.0001%, the difference reflecting the amount of evidence amassed in favor of evolution and the absolute dearth of the same for creationism.

Creationism, because it is unsupported by evidence, is on the same probability level as, say, the statement "An invisible pink elephant created the universe." Neither has any data on which basis to support or totally reject. Now, why accept and teach creationism when the pink elephant theory is equally plausible?

[docpeter-2009]

Posted by caliengineer at 01:29 PM : Jun 26, 2008: "Wow! They extrapolated all this from an entire skull! Usually, they make their fictions with much, much less.
____________________________________

No, actually, if you have read the above article, you would have seen that the scientists determined this from; "The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia. Evidently you went straight for the bloggers. The quote appears in the second paragraph.

[shaggydo-2009]

What is not true about the statement? If there is such proof that completely rules the other out, then present the irrefutable proof that rules out one but not the other. I would like to know. If you have such knowledge and do not share it then shame on you! Because you and you alone are the only one who does possess such knowledge.