The 29+ evidences for Macroevolution are just that, evidences, not anecdotal data. The creationist sites don't even come up to the level of anecdote ... they are, without exception, misstatements of fact, misunderstanding of science or appeals to biblical authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
The only "observed" evolution is within species evolution, or microevolution. Macro evolution still has giant gaps in the fossil record that requrie huge leaps of faith to believe. Please bring forth any "evidence" I might not be privvy to. Ultimately science can never "prove" the random formation of life and can only theorize how it started. Even the simplest life contains 1000s of protein molecules and, formaldehyde experiments aside, the odds of one protein molecule forming in nature and combining are so small the word impossible comes to mind.
A perfect example of both misstatement of fact and misunderstanding of science, all that's missing is a biblical quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
My dad is atheist, my mom agnostic. I formed my opinions on origin after a lot of thought and study. You can imagine we don't discuss religion much at family gatherings..hehe.
Ah, so you're becoming a religionist finds its roots in your teenage angst and your need to establish yourself in the face of parental authority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
I think evolution leaves huge gaps in understanding origins of life and behavior. Take for instance the Plover and the Crocodile and their symbiotic relationship. You can extend this to the ocean and the many symbiotic relationships that exist there. Scientists are fond of quoting things like the articulated jaw structure of the cynodonts but then stumble when confronted with things observed or known in the world that don't support evolution. Take DNA for example. Genetically programmed to do what it was designed to do. You and I type on a computer program with less complexity than a single strand of DNA yet neither of us would even ponder that the computer program was generated randomly.
Classic ... almost vintage horse pucky, its amazing that there are still people out there so poorly read that they are still willing to bring forward these long discredited line of "reasoning." Just look up "blind watchmaker."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Brontosaurus was a fabrication in 1930s by a scientist who wanted headlines. It stayed in children's books and educational institutions for 50 years before it was removed. Interestingly enough, the science community turned a blind eye to it because it was an instrument to peek children's curiosity into the world of dinosaurs.
Javaman was a complete fabrication by Leakey. He took the skull of a giant gibbon and put it on the skeleton of a man.
Oh, I had fogotten, there's misstatement of fact, misunderstanding of science, and just plain lies. Brontosaurus "arose" from rather a rather unscientific personal rivalry between two early paleontologists, it was a misidentification's of a skeleton with an incorrect skull to boot, back in the mid to late 1800s. The mistake was exposed in the scientific community way back in 1903, bu the name Brontosaurus hung on in the public mind, you can't blame science for that. As far as Java Man is concerened, "Java Man" is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil on the banks of the Bengawan Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugène Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. Leakey had nothing to do with it's discovery or its initial description. Once again, lies. This approach is typical of the creationists, David Menton, in The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man, writes about the fossil WT 15000 (the Turkana Boy) says:
"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today."
Don Patton uses a similar quote, saying that according to Richard Leakey:
"....he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
What Leakey really said, in the November 1985 issue of National Geographic, was:
"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."
