Creationism or Evolution?

[Godfather of Soul]

gain, your not reading my posts are you? If you read the last paragraph of my last post you will see that I posted my source.  And I have used more than one source, if you read my post in its entirety then you will see that is the case.  However, why should I have to resort to multiple sources if the source I use is fully cited and uses a whole host of references.

This is ironic.  It is clear that I did not get to the end of your post as my response stops at the part where your single scientist discusses her theory as to how Australopithicus is not the "root" of humanity.  I said I will post more when I get to it. 

If you think using one source is adequate, good luck in pursuing a course of graduate study at any university. 

First off, let me tell you, that was not an attack.  But yeah ok, your [sic] a scientist, but your [sic] certainly not doing a very good job of it so far.

Your irony never ceases to amaze me.  You cannot help but attack those that you disagree with, nor see that I did not make a claim of being a "scientist."  The point of my comment is that you know nothing about my academic training yet feel qualified to speak at length about me, my knowledge base and the "overly technical" sources that I post.

Ok so you finally admit it then.  You are not able to provide the evidence requested, so you now  claim that evolution is not a complete theory, nor is anything.  This then somehow justifies the missing fossils/  Im sorry I simply dont buy that bullshit. You know and everybody else knows that there are millions of fossils out there which show species suddenly appear, fully developed and yet somehow these intermediate species are not applicable as the theory is not a complete one?

Again, irony in the extreme.  Show me where I claimed that evolution is a "perfect" theory.  Show me where I have claimed that anything is "perfect" and "complete."  Unlike you, who makes myriad claims about the "perfection" of his religious faith and its ability to explain everything, I do not use subjective standards when objective ones suffice.  There is no absolute truth.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that to be the case.  However, the great thing about science is that if you can disprove something sufficiently enough, it will be abandoned.  Your ad hominem attacks, using phrases like "bullshit" are ironic as well.  If I were to say that your religious belief is "bullshit" and based on "weak" evidence, you would have a fit.  But you cannot show those who disagree with you that common courtesy. 

But since you refuse to admit that I actually did post evidence of transitional fossils, let me repost it for you (again ironic in that you get upset when I don't read ALL of your information and reply to some and then say I will finish later):

It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.

However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002).

That would be MANY transitional fossils.  Would you like some more images?  Since you refuse to read the evidence
here is a simple link to dozens of dinosaurs WITH FEATHERS.

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/0-feathered_dinosaurs.htm

If you want, I can post pictures of these dinosaurs (as they would look based on the fossils used to reconstruct them!)

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1)

How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

This is frustrating, because it is merely me reposting my evidence because you are too lazy to read all of it.  That is a veritable mountain of evidence.  THere are hundreds of examples.  THAT IS THE PROOF OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.  Disprove all of those dinosaurs in that link.  But if you would have just read what I posted and systematically dismantled it, then we wouldn't be here.  I am tired of you refusing to engage with our evidence because you are too lazy.

I'm open to the fact that we dont know everything about Gravity just yet, but this thread is about evolution, and more specifically the missing evidence, this doesnt make the lack of evidence any more plausible.  If you want to discuss the theory of Gravity, start a new thread.

Do you not see the obvious parallel.  If you want to debate gravity, then we can do that.  I was making a point that even something that you assume exists as an absolute is not actually that and that no scientific theory, even one as ubiquitous as gravity, is infalible or unchangeable.

No, the only reason your 'many' scientists still believe they are A.A footprints is simply because it would destroy their whole theory as it would mean homo species being around at the same time as a.a..  This just goes to show the evolution theory is not science but a blindly supported dogma no matter what scientific findings prove.  Oh and secondly, its not uncited, If you go the source I referenced in my last post you will see the actual reference at the foot (no pun intended!) of the page ((23) Russell H. Tuttle, "The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet," Natural History, vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64.)

Where is the carbon dated homo sapien fossil that is millions of years old?  Where?  If you are going to use the footprint as evidence, then it is weak when compared to a carbon-dated fossil.  You do not have homo sapien FOSSILS that old.  You have footprints.  If there is not a single homo sapien fossil that is 3.6 million years old, then chances are that those footprints were not made by homo sapiens sapiens (the most modern man).  All you have to do is show one 3.6 million year old homo sapiens sapiens fossil and you will win the argument.  But you can't, because there are none!  You won't address that because it is inconvenient.

Uh?  Why would I want to disprove the fossil record when it clearly shows that creatures were created suddenly and those that have survived to this day have not changed at all.  The onus is on you to provide the evidence for these huge gaps.

See above.  Wait, you probably won't read the above because it's "too technical."

You say its proof of nothing but you dont have the evidence to state otherwise.  How long would this gradual evolution of yours take? A long time right? Where's the fossil evidence?  Surely you should have mustered something over this huge time span?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids:

    * Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
    * Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
    * Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
    * Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
    * Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
    * Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.
    * One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
    * H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.

NOT EVERYTHING FOSSILIZES!  There are gaps of millions of years.  But you refuse to accept all of the different hominids as evidence of transition.  I can't give you MORE evidence of the hundreds (or thousands) of fossils that are not modern man nor ape because you refuse to accept their reality.

Right But where is the evidence of half-bi pedal fossiles?

I don't know...they don't have to exist for there to be proof of evolution.  It can happen quite quickly or quite slowly depending on the environmental pressure.

What a Joke, is this the best you can come up with? Its certainly bizarre buts it not your 'missing link' is it?  Cheesy - And to quote "began walking exclusively on her hind legs after a stomach ailment nearly killed her, " maybe its the fact the monkey's stomach is so fucked that its too painful to try and move otherwise? Face it, if the monkey was a naturally bi-pedal then it would have started walking from day one, not after a stomach problem and Brain Damage!  And whats more its from Israel  Roll Eyes I need not say anymore.

It may be funny, but it shows that an environmental pressure can cause a dramatic change in a quadripedal animal, making it bi-pedal.  If this ailment happened to enough of these monkeys, then they more than likely would start walking bipedally.  That is evidence of natural selection, something that you do not address whatsoever.  And your asinine comment about Israel is just plain silly.  That's like an Israeli saying "it's from Al Jazeera, it's bullshit."  I can't even begin to describe how problematic your dismissal of ALL things Israeli is.
   

Ive read the above and they are laughable at best, make-believe and pure conjecture.  They are clutching at straws.

Can you please quote why and how?  I am not going to just take your word for it.  I could say the same thing about your whole religious belief structure, but that wouldn't be productive, nor would I have evidence since I don't quote any reasons why.

No, they co-existed and this then invalidates your theory - as posted above, I wont repeat it again.

You have ONE set of footprints and NO fossil evidence of a 3.5 million year old homo sapien.  Where is there another set of footprints that show this?  If they co-existed, there would be literally thousands of locations that would show this...not just one.  Show me one homo sapien fossil that is that old.  Show me another set of footprints that "prove" co-existence  YOU CAN'T DO IT.  Your assertion that AA and Homo Sapiens Sapiens co-existed is extremely weak...based on ONE thing.   

-If you are going to pose questions about GCS's religion, do it on another thread.  THis is about evolution.  Other posts that do not engage directly in the topic at hand will be deleted.

[JC]

Citing all of this evidence is good and important, but I would like to ask a question about trusting science. Why is it ok to trust science in some cases and not others? We already know through science we can fly and we can cook food without a flame We also know science can heal both the physically and the mentally ill. I chose these examples because they would be seen as miracles by people more primitave than ourselves but we dont think they are miracles and we trust science to crack open our chests and do surgery. Why is questioning religious dogma so bad?

[Godfather of Soul]

Because science does not apply to matters of ethics, morals, philosophy or those things that exist outside of the physical universe.  Science cannot tell you if something is good or bad.  That is what philosophy, religion and ethics are for.  You can question religious dogma all that you want, but using science as a backdrop will not do anything.  When the two mix, you often have people like GCS, who is in a minority of epic proportions (as I showed before, .15% of scientists are creationsists...http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html) who can pick out small (and they are extremely small) inconsistinces in a theory with massive amounts of evidence.  I have shown dozens of examples of transitional fossils, how his claim that AA and HS co-existed (truly a joke) and he refuses to accept the evidence.  I conede that evolution is not complete, but neither is gravity, thermo-dynamics or any other scientifiic theory.  THe difference between our approaches is that he exists in a world of absolutes (absolute truth, etc.) where as those who know science will never say that there is an absolute, only an extremely high likelihood. 

GCS-

I will contintue to analyze your information when I have the time...maybe you can analyze the first bit of information I put up and tell me how those lists of transitional fossils are wrong, or how the feathered dinosaurs are fake.  I can't wait to address your piltdown man portion...he's a standard device that creationsists like yourself use to "disprove" all of the other THOUSANDS of hominid fossils.  Because one was a fake, they must all be.  Give me a break.

[JC]

I wouldn't argue that science is moral I feel its neutral and can be used for both good and bad. My real issue is why is it ok to trust science sometimes and not others. As for the morality of religion or its moral teachings I guess thats for another thread. Maybe in an effort to spark that other debate I will say I have as of yet seen an example where religion is not immoral in any form not neutral.

[Godfather of Soul]

Trusting science has to do with amounts of evidence.  For example, there is a current debate in the physics community around the validity of string theory.  Some say that it is true, but extremely difficult to empirically prove.  Others say that it is impossible to prove it, and that it is merely a mathematical formalism that allows for the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics to be bridged.  We shall see with the completion of the Large Hadron Collider...

For example, you can say that evolution and gravity are rather strong theories that are supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence.  A weak theory would be one like spontaneous human cumbustion.  Some say it has happened, but it cannot be replicated.  That is another key thing about trusting some scientific evidence and not others; if something cannot be replicated it is considered anomalous.  There are basic standards, with things being called scientific "laws" having the strongest amount to support them.  Thermodynamics, electromagnetism and gravity are often called laws because there is little evidence to show that they are not nearly ubiquitous.  However, if someone can show instances where those things break down and show that they happen repeatedly, then those laws will be knocked down a few pegs.  Einstein's discovery of special and general relativity did this to Newtonian physics...so did quantum mechanics.  If you can show a good amount of evidence then it is acceptable, if you show ONE instance, like GCS and his 3.5 million year old homo sapiens sapiens (or their footprints) that is not enough to discredit the vast body of evidence that shows that evolution is something that is happening, or that there were  never other ape-like human-like animals who do not easily fit into either category.

[GodsChosenSoldier]

Whoa whoa, hold on a second!
Although I do agree that most of early science did all it could to prove that european white men where superior to all races and women, that crap has nothing to do with modern evolutionairy theory.
Darwin scratched the surface on many things, even if some of the things he theorized were obviously biased.

Modern anthropologist know for a fact that races are a societal construction, and all human beings on earth today or neither more evolved or less evolved then others. That's completely irrelevant to modern evolutionairy theory.

Darwin did not just scratch the surface, he laid down the foundations for the theory of evolution.  The very theory that empowered the misguided Whites to propel and continue to propagate the theory and they still do so to this day.  Its the very theory that enslaved the Black man, similarly to how White Jesus in Christianity has.

I see GOS has posted a reply so I wont dwell on this right now but I will definetly post some more on the far and deep reaching consequences of the racist idelogy that is the evolution theory.  In the meantime, perhaps you would like to demonstrate how your 'modern evolutionary theory' places all of mankind on the same platform.

[Godfather of Soul]

Modern man = Homo Sapiens Sapiens = THE SAME SPECIES!= nigerians and sweedes are more closely related than two sweedes or two nigerians.  You have to do better than this.  No one says that there is a hierarchy of modern man.  That shit got played out in the 1940s.

As for your attack on Christians, Muslims used Islam to enslave Africans as well, so don't even take it there. 

Plus, you still didn't even address ONE part of the information that I posted.  We are not moving on to the "racism" of evolution (which you claim is currently going on, yet cite no evidence for it) until you address all of the transitional fossils that I put up.  Great tactic: when you have nothing to refute with, just change the direction of the debate.  Good work.  Plus, how can we prove a negative?  The burden of proof is on YOU, to back up the claims you make.  In a criminal court, the person does not have to prove that they did not do the crime, but the prosecution must prove that THEY DID.  So, you prove how current evolutionary theory is racist.  There is no point in even debating social darwinism because there are even fewer scientists who subscribe to that theory than there are those who are creationists!  If you want to talk about how the scientific theory of evolution was and sometimes is used to support racism, so be it, but I don't think you will be convincing anyone of anything that isn't firmly established in the historical record.

Einstein invented general and special relativity.  Heisenberg the uncertainty principle.  All three of those theories were used in making atomic weaponry!  Does that mean that the science behind them is unsound or that the unethical and immoral application of the theory is horrible?  You are conflating the issues and trying to make this an ethical debate when it is a scientific debate!

[GodsChosenSoldier]

Again, irony in the extreme. Show me where I claimed that evolution is a "perfect" theory. Show me where I have claimed that anything is "perfect" and "complete."

No, you know exactly what I am talking about.  Your theory here is conveniently incomplete by the lack of certain intermediary fossils.

It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.

However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.

It's all predictions, there is no evidence there.  The transition the author talks about is just a fairytale so any predictions of an intermediary species based on the physical structure of one particular creature along with another creature which supposedly evolved from the original, is again, pure conjecture and guesswork.  Its not evidence.  Not to mention the fact that the author again conveniently states that we are not expected to find any half dino half bird fossils, you know really why? because he knows that this supposed creature is pure make believe.

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002).

That would be MANY transitional fossils. Would you like some more images? Since you refuse to read the evidence
here is a simple link to dozens of dinosaurs WITH FEATHERS.

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/0-feathered_dinosaurs.htm

If you want, I can post pictures of these dinosaurs (as they would look based on the fossils used to reconstruct them!)

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1)



How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.

Ah, it was wondering how long it would be before you get to the dinobird equation.  Let me pose to you a few 'simple' questions?
1.  Why would dinosaurs have the need to grow wings?
2.  Where are the fossil’s of a half-bird half-dinosaur ?
3.  How then if you claim the evolution of land to air was by means of dinosaurs did insects such as flies develop their flight systems?

There are huge problems with the theory of dinosaur to bird evolution.

Ever wondered how birds can continue to fly for long periods without getting short of breath?

1.  The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

    This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi… The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details it is identical in birds. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.)

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

…In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-212.)

In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.


Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct design is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:

    The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage. (J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.)

Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the situation:

    Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development… because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid. (Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.)

In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.

Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung is enough to answer Darwin's challenge:
    "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189)

2.  The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs

Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other.

There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place.

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C (118°F) due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most.

Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for "dinosaur-bird evolution."

In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because, surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian. (5)

3.  Bird Feathers and Reptile Scales

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

    How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates." (13)

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers. (15)

Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. (16)

More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:

Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain as speculation.

All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. (18)

Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen fibers.(19) The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with absolutely no documentation."(20) (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities." (21)

4.  The Design of Feathers

Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know, there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper.

On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs. And these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the feathers to return to their previous positions.

To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago:

    It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)

The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" (23)

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.

This is frustrating, because it is merely me reposting my evidence because you are too lazy to read all of it. That is a veritable mountain of evidence. THere are hundreds of examples. THAT IS THE PROOF OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. Disprove all of those dinosaurs in that link. But if you would have just read what I posted and systematically dismantled it, then we wouldn't be here. I am tired of you refusing to engage with our evidence because you are too lazy.

Proof of 'transitional fossils' would be 'transitional fossils' not guesswork!  This is proof - Living fossils:

Living fossil is the nickname given to organisms whose traces appear in the fossil layers from early geological periods, of which living specimens are still found today. These living things exhibit no differences from their counterparts from millions of years ago, and represent living examples of those long-dead fossil forms.

Without doubt, the most important of these is the forementioned Cœlacanth. For many years, evolutionists portrayed it as the most significant supposed intermediate form, on which they wasted a great deal of speculation until the first surprise appeared in 1938.



The Cœlacanth: An Example of a False Intermediate Form

The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith and the living Cœlacanth found in the Comoro Islands. This first specimen showed that the Cœlacanth was a fully-fledged fish, not an intermediate form as claimed by evolutionists. Another 200 specimens discovered since have confirmed this significant fact.

A 410-million-year-old Cœlacanth fossil.

Off the coast of southern Africa, in the winter of 1938, a fishing boat called The Nerine dragged from the Indian Ocean near the Chalumna River a fish thought to be extinct for 70 million years. The fish was a cœlacanth, an animal that thrived concurrently with dinosaurs...18   

These words, by the evolutionist Keith S. Thompson, chairman of the Oxford University Academy of Natural Sciences, are a clear expression of how quickly an evolutionary myth faded  into nothing. The catching of a live specimen of Cœlacanth did away with one of the greatest fake foundations of the theory of evolution.

The Cœlacanth, which according to the fossil record, dates back some 410 million years to the Devonian period, was regarded by evolutionists as a powerful intermediate form between fish and reptile. It had been mysteriously erased from the fossil record 70 million years ago, during  the Cretaceous period, and was believed to have become extinct at that time.19   Based on these fossils, evolutionist biologists suggested that this creature had a non-functioning, "primitive" as evolutionists put it, lung. Speculation regarding the Cœlacanth became so widespread that the fish was cited in many scientific publications as the most significant evidence for evolution. Paintings and drawings of it leaving the water for the land quickly began appearing in books and magazines. Of course, all these assumptions, images and claims, were based on the idea that the creature was extinct.

The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day Cœlacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first Cœlacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."

And there are literally millions more and every single new fossil unearthed further destroys the evolution theory.



Bird - http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=86 - various fossil birds found in China are among the evidence showing that birds have always been birds and that they did not evolve from any other creature. Darwinists claim that birds evolved from reptiles, but they lack any evidence to prove this claim. All fossil specimens gathered over the past 150 years show that evolutionists' claims are entirely groundless. The 140-million-year-old fossil bird pictured once again proves this fact.

Lizard - http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=76 - Lizards alive 210 million years ago are no different from lizards that live today. Fossil lizards have exactly the same structures and systems that living lizards have. Like all other living creatures, lizards underwent no evolutionary process. The fossil pictured is evidence of this truth.

And there's plenty more from that site and many more sites.  Why then have all of these creatures hundreds of millions of years ago not evolved into some random creatures?  Now can you provide the same sort of evidence for the intermediate creatures.

Where is the carbon dated homo sapien fossil that is millions of years old? Where? If you are going to use the footprint as evidence, then it is weak when compared to a carbon-dated fossil. You do not have homo sapien FOSSILS that old. You have footprints. If there is not a single homo sapien fossil that is 3.6 million years old, then chances are that those footprints were not made by homo sapiens sapiens (the most modern man). All you have to do is show one 3.6 million year old homo sapiens sapiens fossil and you will win the argument. But you can't, because there are none! You won't address that because it is inconvenient.

Well there is AL-666-1 which is around 2.3 million year old jaw.



Fossil AL 666-1 was found in Hadar in Ethiopia, together with A. afarensis fossils. This 2.3-million-year-old jaw bone had features identical to those of Homo sapiens.
AL 666-1 resembled neither the A. afarensis jawbones that were found with it, nor a 1.75-million-year-old Homo habilis jaw. The jaws of these two species, with their narrow and rectangular shapes, resembled those of present-day apes.
Although there is no doubt that AL 666-1 belonged to a "Homo" (human) species, evolutionary paleontologists do not accept this fact. They refrain from making any comment on this, because the jaw is calculated to be 2.3 million years old-in other words, much older than the age they allow for the Homo, or human, race.

Evolutionist publications seek to gloss it over by referring to it as "a very startling discovery"... (D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.169)

GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids:

Again, the convienice of gaps stinks of non-evidence of intermediate fossils.

Ive read the above and they are laughable at best, make-believe and pure conjecture. They are clutching at straws.

Can you please quote why and how? I am not going to just take your word for it. I could say the same thing about your whole religious belief structure, but that wouldn't be productive, nor would I have evidence since I don't quote any reasons why.

I will, they were badly written.  I've ran out of time for now.

[Godfather of Soul]

So, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. It works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation.Given enough time, this passive process can result in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).

No, you know exactly what I am talking about.  Your theory here is conveniently incomplete by the lack of certain intermediary fossils.

Ok, it is lacking certain intermediary fossils, but not others.  Sure, you ask for extremely specific fossils, I give you things like dinosaurs with feathers, but you do not accept them, or their fossils as proof of anything.  It's funny, because if you would look at the stuff I actually posted you would see dinosaurs with beaks, feathers, claws, etc...all could be interpreted as HALF AND HALF...

The transition the author talks about is just a fairytale so any predictions of an intermediary species based on the physical structure of one particular creature along with another creature which supposedly evolved from the original, is again, pure conjecture and guesswork.  Its not evidence.

Oh, ok, it's a fairytale because you say it is.  It's guesswork because you say it is.  The comparisons are invalid because YOU say they are. 

ot to mention the fact that the author again conveniently states that we are not expected to find any half dino half bird fossils, you know really why? because he knows that this supposed creature is pure make believe.

Funny, because that is not what it says...I'm sorry if you misunderstood it, but he says this:

However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.

And then I show you dozens of examples of dinosaurs with feathers, etc. which you do not even address!

Ah, it was wondering how long it would be before you get to the dinobird equation.  Let me pose to you a few 'simple' questions?
1.  Why would dinosaurs have the need to grow wings?
2.  Where are the fossil’s of a half-bird half-dinosaur ?
3.  How then if you claim the evolution of land to air was by means of dinosaurs did insects such as flies develop their flight systems?

1.  Because it was a beneficial trait.  Those that had wings or began to develop them had an advantage over those that did not.  The environment changes over millions of years, and so do the specific pressures that face the creatures who live in those environments.  If they do not adapt to the changes, then they die.  I cannot say what the specific pressures were, but I am figuring that weather changed, geography changed, as did availiability of food...  However, body temperature regulation is proably a big reason why.

2.  See, this is just stupid, because I posted you a link to over two dozen! http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/0-feathered_dinosaurs.htm  My god, you are lazy!  Here are some pix:

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/alxasaurus_elesitaiensis.htm
http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/troodontidae.htm

CLICK ON THEM!

3.  http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/d-stone2/ci335/4ainsectevolution.html  Funny that you would bring up insects, which have NOTHING to do with lizards or birds seeing as they don't even have SKELETONS!

Ever wondered how birds can continue to fly for long periods without getting short of breath?

1.  The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

    This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi… The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details it is identical in birds. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.)

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

…In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ...Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. (Michael Denton, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-212.)

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Why couldn't this happen? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish

Those are animals that can breathe in both air and in water!  HEre's one specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

So the possibility of there being something that could do both isn't that far fetched.

But let me refute it more specifically:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

Creationist response

Carl Wieland of 'Answers in Genesis' has written a response to this paper (13), that is generally reasonably restrained, but utterly fallacious.  He correctly points out that this analysis does not, in itself, resolve the issue of the steps by which a bellows type lung evolved into the avian flow-through system. His discussion is, however fundamentally flawed in one important respect: his main objection to the evolution of an avian system from a bellows system is that he cannot see how it could happen. This of course is the old canard (a term that is peculiarly well suited to this subject!) of the argument from personal incredulity.  Carl cannot conceive of a pathway by which the avian lung could evolve from a bellows arrangement, so of course, in his mind, it cannot have happened. This was the original design argument used by William Paley.  It was intellectual gruel then, and it is intellectual gruel now.  Carl would have us believe that there is an 'in-principle' barrier to the evolution of 'flow-through' ventilation.  (I think Carl means unidirectional flow-through ventilation - he doesn't seem to recognise the distinction between unidirectional and bidirectional flow-through ventilation). Of course, there is no such 'in-principle'  barrier and one can think of very obvious routes by which the avian system could develop from a bellows arrangement.  The first obvious step in this process, the development of a bidirectional flow-through system with air sacs positioned beyond the lung in the tail end of the trunk is strongly supported by this study. Carl asks 'How could any creature breathe while the in-between stages were evolving, while air was not yet flowing through but no longer going in and out? The answer to this is obvious: it breathes by air flowing thriough the lung bidirectionally - in other words it flows through and goes in and out.



I wonder whether Carl realises that, even in modern birds, there is a mixture of unidirectional flow through the so-called palaeopulmonic bronchi and bidirectional flow through the so-called neopulmonic bronchi.

Carl also claims to know clearly what constitutes the same and what constitutes different biblical 'kinds'. If so, he is the first man on earth to do so, as no creationist has ever defined a 'kind' in a self-consistent way.

The fact is that not only is the evidence very strong that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, but there is no objection 'in principle' to development of the avian respiratory system.

So, read that study...that uses FOSSIL evidence to answer your question.

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

    How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates." (13)

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers. (15)

Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. (16)

More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:

Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain as speculation.

All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. (18)

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

That is one possible explanation.  Scutes may be the root of dinosaur feathers...

Here is another:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/802009.stm

To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago:

    It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. (22)

ok...that's his opninion but given the millions of years and hundreds of millions of individual members of a single species, it isn't that much of a strain.  Look how much the geography of the earth has changed in 60 million years.  Using terms like "design" are meaningless and imply a creator.  Why the hell would a creator design an appendix?  Or a tailbone?  What purpose do they serve?

Why don't you explain something for a change:

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html

VESTIGIAL ORGANS  Why do they exist?  What purpose do they serve? 
Since you won't read the link, here are some questions for you to explain away:

1.  Why do flightless birds like Ostriches HAVE WINGS?! They don't help them fly...

In general, wings of a bird are considered complex structures that are specifically adapted for flight and those belonging to these flightless birds are no different. They are, anatomically, rudimentary wings, but they could never give these bulky birds flight. The wings are not completely useless, as they are used for balance during running and in flagging down the honeys during courtship displays.

2.  Why do whales have hind leg bones?

Despite the apparent uselessness, evolution left traces of hind legs behind, and these vestigial limbs can still be seen in the modern whale. There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits.

3.  Erector Pilli (goose bumps) and body hair...WHY DO HUMANS HAVE THEM!?

Humans, though, don’t have thick furs like their ancestors did, and our strategy for several thousand years has been to take the fur off other warm looking animals to stay warm. It’s ironic actually that an animal, sensing danger is near, would puff up its coat to look scarier, but the human hunter would see the puffier coat as a warm prize, leaving the thinner haired weaker looking animals alone. Of course, some body hair is helpful to humans; eye brows can keep sweat out of the eyes and facial hair might influence a woman’s choice of sexual partner. All the rest of that hair, though, is essentially useless.

4.  Human Tail Bone...WHY DO WE HAVE IT?

There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would’ve been killed instantly.

5. The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus

In an experiment designed by nature, the species of fish known as Astyanax mexicanus, dwelling in caves deep underground off the coast of Mexico, cannot see. The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin. These vestigial eyes probably formed after hundreds or even thousands of years of living in total darkness. As for the experiment, a control is needed; and luckily for us, fish of the same species live right above, near the surface, where there is plenty of light, and these fish have fully functioning eyes. To test if the eyes of the blind mexicanus could function if given the right environment, scientists removed the lens from the eye of the surface-dwelling fish and implanted it into the eye of the blind fish. It was observed that within eight days an eye started to develop beneath the skin, and after two months the fish had developed a large functioning eye with a pupil, cornea, and iris. The fish were blind, but now they see.

  [/b]

6.  Wisdom Teeth in Humans

There are two possible reasons why the wisdom teeth have become vestigial. The first is that the human jaw has become smaller than its ancestors’ and the wisdom teeth are trying to grow into a jaw that is much too small. The second reason may have to do with dental hygiene. A few thousand years ago, it might be common for an 18 year old man to have lost several, probably most, of his teeth, and the incoming wisdom teeth would prove useful. Now that humans brush their teeth twice a day, it’s possible to keep one’s teeth for a lifetime. The drawback is that the wisdom teeth still want to come in, and when they do, they usually need to be extracted to prevent any serious pain

7.  The Sexual Organs of Dandelions

Dandelions, like all flowers, have the proper organs (stamen and pistil) necessary for sexual reproduction, but do not use them. Dandelions reproduce without fertilization; they basically clone themselves, and they are quite successful at it. Look at any lawn for the proof. If dandelions were to revert to sexual reproduction, they might not retain whatever traits they have that allow them to be pests to gardeners everywhere. If flowers can begin reproducing in this manner, does that mean animals, even humans could too? Asexual reproduction can be a good strategy in an environment that is constant if a species is well suited to those conditions. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that humans wouldn’t last long if the condition set forth was no sexual contact with others. Therefore, the human sexual organs are probably in no danger of becoming vestigial.

8.  Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)

Only females exist in several species of the lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus, which might seem like a problem when it comes time to propagate the species. The females don’t need the males though, they reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual. So basically, the females don’t need the males; they just produce clones of themselves as a form of reproduction. Despite the fact that it is unnecessary and futile to attempt copulation with each other, the lizards still like to try, and occasionally one of the females will start to “act like a male” by attempting to copulate with another female. The lizards evolved from a sexual species and the behavior to copulate like a male -- to engage in fake sex -- is a vestigial behavior; that is, a behavior present in a species, but is expressed in an imperfect form, which in this case, is useless.

9.  Male Breast Tissue and Nipples

The subject of male nipples is a sensitive, and maybe confusing, topic to many. Those who wish to invalidate evolutionary theory might pose the question, “Was man descended from woman?” The answer, of course, is no. Both men and women have nipples because in early stages of fetal development, an unborn child is effectively sexless. Nipples are present in both males and females; it is only in a later stage of fetal development that testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. All mammals, male and female, have mammary glands. Male nipples are vestigial; they may perform a small role in sexual stimulation and a small number of men have been able to lactate. However, they are not fully functional and, because cancer can grow in male or female breast tissue, the tissue can be dangerous.

And the best for last:

10.  The Human Appendix

    In plant-eating vertebrates, the appendix is much larger and its main function is to help digest a largely herbivorous diet. The human appendix is a small pouch attached to the large intestine where it joins the small intestine and does not directly assist digestion. Biologists believe it is a vestigial organ left behind from a plant-eating ancestor. Interestingly, it has been noted by paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer in his text The Vertebrate Body (1949) that the major importance of the appendix “would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession,” referring to, of course, the large number of appendectomies performed annually. In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured.

Why do those particular organisms have those things?  It is clear that they had them because at some point long ago, one of their distant ancestors had a use for them.  Show me why they are here now, what purpose they serve.

Also...WHERE IS THE 3.5 MILLION YEAR OLD HOMO SAPIEN FOSSIL?

And there are literally millions more and every single new fossil unearthed further destroys the evolution theory.

Like?  You show one example...that is not millions.

Bird - http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=86 - various fossil birds found in China are among the evidence showing that birds have always been birds and that they did not evolve from any other creature. Darwinists claim that birds evolved from reptiles, but they lack any evidence to prove this claim. All fossil specimens gathered over the past 150 years show that evolutionists' claims are entirely groundless. The 140-million-year-old fossil bird pictured once again proves this fact.

What is the NAME of this fossil so that I can actually look it up?  I don't see one on that site.

Lizard - http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=76 - Lizards alive 210 million years ago are no different from lizards that live today. Fossil lizards have exactly the same structures and systems that living lizards have. Like all other living creatures, lizards underwent no evolutionary process. The fossil pictured is evidence of this truth.

They do?  Where are all of the giant lizzards today?  Where are all of the huge lizzard hearts and lungs and 40 foot lizzards?  The structures are SIGNIFICANTLY different today!  That is truly weak.  A reduction in size IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE!

Well there is AL-666-1 which is around 2.3 million year old jaw.



Fossil AL 666-1 was found in Hadar in Ethiopia, together with A. afarensis fossils. This 2.3-million-year-old jaw bone had features identical to those of Homo sapiens.
AL 666-1 resembled neither the A. afarensis jawbones that were found with it, nor a 1.75-million-year-old Homo habilis jaw. The jaws of these two species, with their narrow and rectangular shapes, resembled those of present-day apes.
Although there is no doubt that AL 666-1 belonged to a "Homo" (human) species, evolutionary paleontologists do not accept this fact. They refrain from making any comment on this, because the jaw is calculated to be 2.3 million years old-in other words, much older than the age they allow for the Homo, or human, race.

Evolutionist publications seek to gloss it over by referring to it as "a very startling discovery"... (D. Johanson, Blake Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.169)

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1556309

Further studies on maxillary and dental morphology lead us to attribute A.L. 666-1 to Homo aff. H. habilis. The new Hadar jaw is the first paleontological evidence for the projection of the H. habilis maxillofacial morphotype well back into the Pliocene. It may represent a male of this species, whose maxillary hypodigm consists chiefly of females. A subsidiary finding of our study is that of the three earliest recorded species of Homo (H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus), it is H. habilis that exhibits facial morphology closest to that expected in their last common ancestor.

[/b]

So again, it is homo habilis, not homo sapien. Nice try.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/paleo/paleoposts/Omo.htm

Oldest homo sapien fossils are 150k years old.

[murdaLicious]

The very theory that empowered the misguided Whites to propel and continue to propagate the theory and they still do so to this day. Its the very theory that enslaved the Black man, similarly to how White Jesus in Christianity has.

Nowhere in the modern theory of evolution does it say that black people are closer to monkeys than whites.  And speaking of slavery... tell me who is still practicing slavery in the Sudan?  Is it the misguided white evolutionists?

[GodsChosenSoldier]

Ok, it is lacking certain intermediary fossils, but not others. Sure, you ask for extremely specific fossils, I give you things like dinosaurs with feathers, but you do not accept them, or their fossils as proof of anything. It's funny, because if you would look at the stuff I actually posted you would see dinosaurs with beaks, feathers, claws, etc...all could be interpreted as HALF AND HALF...

That’s what my whole thread was about, concrete evidence.  Im not interested in various theories that rely merely on blind predictions.  There’s plenty of horrific conjecture around on the internet and books, you don’t have to look far.

Oh, ok, it's a fairytale because you say it is. It's guesswork because you say it is. The comparisons are invalid because YOU say they are.

No, its because they lack credibility due to the absence of evidence.

1. Because it was a beneficial trait. Those that had wings or began to develop them had an advantage over those that did not. The environment changes over millions of years, and so do the specific pressures that face the creatures who live in those environments. If they do not adapt to the changes, then they die. I cannot say what the specific pressures were, but I am figuring that weather changed, geography changed, as did availiability of food... However, body temperature regulation is proably a big reason why.

Right, but why exactly?  It’s preposterous to claim that they developed wings and evolved into birds but you don’t exactly know why?  for what reason?  Why did’nt they
just grow longer necks or start to climb trees?  Why the reason to grow wings and fly?

2. See, this is just stupid, because I posted you a link to over two dozen! http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/0-feathered_dinosaurs.htm My god, you are lazy! Here are some pix:
http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/alxasaurus_elesitaiensis.htm
http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/troodontidae.htm
CLICK ON THEM!

Im sorry but that is just a joke?  I looked at all of this information when you posted it first up and I can tell you that I had a great time laughing at it.  You seriously think this amounts to evidence?  This is definetly your weakest post to date if you seriously believe in this.  Its just an illustration based on pure speculation.  Here let me break it down for you:

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data" (David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Nature, June 1978, p. 40).  Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

In pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.
At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this:
To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.(Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: McMillan, 1931, p. 332)

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), are a famous example of such forgery.
The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.

3. http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/d-stone2/ci335/4ainsectevolution.html Funny that you would bring up insects, which have NOTHING to do with lizards or birds seeing as they don't even have SKELETONS!

Right but the fossils (go to that site i posted to see them) of winged creatures prove that they never evolved from the wingless variety and appeared suddenly in the fossil record.

In the classification of living things, insects make up a subphylum, Insecta, of the phylum Arthropoda. The oldest insect fossils belong to the Devonian Age (410 to 360 million years ago). In the Pennsylvanian Age which followed (325 to 286 million years ago), there emerged a great number of different insect species. For instance, cockroaches emerge all of a sudden, and with the same structure as they have today. Betty Faber, of the American Museum of Natural History, reports that fossil cockroaches from 350 million years ago are exactly the same as those of today (M. Kusinitz, Science World, 4 February, 1983, p. 19.)

Creatures such as spiders, ticks, and millipedes are not insects, but rather belong to other subphyla of Arthropoda. Important fossil discoveries of these creatures were communicated to the 1983 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old spider, tick, and centipede fossils is the fact that they are no different from specimens alive today. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that, "they looked like they might have died yesterday."(

Winged insects also emerge suddenly in the fossil record, and with all the features peculiar to them. For example, a large number of dragonfly fossils from the Pennsylvanian Age have been found. And these dragonflies have exactly the same structures as their counterparts today.


This Acantherpestes major millipede, found in the state of Kansas in the United States, is some 300 million years old, and no different from millipedes today. 145-million-year-old fossil fly. This fossil, found in Liaoning in China, is the same as flies of the same species living today. 


Winged insects emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, and from that moment they have possessed the same flawless structures as today. The 320-million-year fossil dragonfly above is the oldest known specimen and is no different from dragonflies living today. No "evolution" has taken place.
 

One interesting point here is the fact that dragonflies and flies emerge all of a sudden, together with wingless insects. This disproves the theory that wingless insects developed wings and gradually evolved into flying ones. In one of their articles in the book Biomechanics in Evolution, Robin Wootton and Charles P. Ellington have this to say on the subject:

When insect fossils first appear, in the Middle and Upper Carboniferous, they are diverse and for the most part fully winged. There are a few primitively wingless forms, but no convincing intermediates are known.(R. J. Wootton, C. P. Ellington, "Biomechanics & the Origin of Insect Flight," Biomechanics in Evolution, ed. J. M. V. Rayner & R. J. )

One major characteristic of flies, which emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, is their amazing flying technique. Whereas a human being is unable to open and close his arms even 10 times a second, an average fly flaps its wings 500 times in that space of time. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of its wings would cause the fly to lose balance, but this never happens.

In an article titled "The Mechanical Design of Fly Wings," Wootton further observes:

The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear … Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels - yet.(145 Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings," Scientific American, vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120. (emphasis added)


Of course the sudden emergence of living things with such a perfect design as this cannot be explained by any evolutionist account. That is why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."(Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 30. (emphasis added).

The origin of insects clearly proves the fact of creation.

Why couldn't this happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish

Those are animals that can breathe in both air and in water! HEre's one specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

So the possibility of there being something that could do both isn't that far fetched.

Its not about breathing both in water and air, its about the extent of the advanced respiratory systems of birds.

But let me refute it more specifically:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

  Thats a half-decent article, i'd have to look into further details before commenting on what the author has suggested.

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

 How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (11)

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]." (12) Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates." (13)

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds. (14) Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers. (15)

Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. (16)

More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:

Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor."(17) (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain as speculation.

All news about "dino-birds" is speculative. Many claims on the subject have turned out to false. For example, the "feathered dinosaur" claim that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. (18)

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

That is one possible explanation. Scutes may be the root of dinosaur feathers...

Here is another:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/802009.stm

Typical expected response, well if you read above you will see that Scutes and Longisquama have already been addressed above, try again.

ok...that's his opninion but given the millions of years and hundreds of millions of individual members of a single species, it isn't that much of a strain. Look how much the geography of the earth has changed in 60 million years. Using terms like "design" are meaningless and imply a creator. Why the hell would a creator design an appendix? Or a tailbone? What purpose do they serve?

Why don't you explain something for a change:

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html

VESTIGIAL ORGANS Why do they exist? What purpose do they serve?

Its not really for me to address anything here in this thread, this thread was created in a response to your claim of ‘massive amounts of evidence’ so it was created to simply help you in distributing your immense amounts of proof for the evolution theory.
However, I remember reading about vestigial organs before, it’s the same old evolutionists primitive thinking.  Just because they dont know the ins and outs of a particular organ, they disregard them as insignifcant and uselesss organs.

The Myth of Vestigial Organs

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolutionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to advance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago. As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some creatures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312


A scientific study of the myth of vestigial organs: "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional.
The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997:

Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.313

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column supports the bones around the pelvis and is the convergence point of some small muscles and for this reason, it would not be possible to sit comfortably without a coccyx.

In the years that followed, it was realized that the thymus triggered the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones such as melatonin, which inhibits secretion of luteinizing hormone, that the thyroid gland was effective in providing steady growth in babies and children and in metabolism and body activity, and that the pituitary gland controlled skeletal growth and the proper functioning of the thyroid, adrenals, and reproductive glands. All of these were once considered to be "vestigial organs." Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyeball.


The appendix (above), which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.   
There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the appendix does not exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, expressed this logical error as follows:

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this?314

Beside all of this, the claim that an organ which is not used atrophies and disappears over time carries a logical inconsistency within it. Darwin was aware of this inconsistency, and made the following confession in The Origin of Species:

There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give.315

Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body.

Yet Another Blow To "Vestigial Organs": The Leg of the Horse

The latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recent study on the leg of the horse. In an article in the 20-27 December 2001 issue of the journal Nature, titled "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations," it is noted that "Some muscle fibres in the legs of horses seem to be evolutionary leftovers with no function. But in fact they may act to damp damaging vibrations generated in the leg as the horse runs." The article reads as follows:

Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimetres long connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long. Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimetres as the animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of longer fibres that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibres might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging vibrations….

Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high-for example, 30-40 Hz in horses-so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the ground if there were no damping.

The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some cases of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibres protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping out vibrations…316

In short, a closer loot at the anatomy of the horse revealed that the structures that have been considered as nonfunctional by evolutionists have very important functions.

In other words, scientific progress demonstrated that what was considered to be evidence for evolution is in fact evidence for design. Evolutionists should take a hint from this fact, if they are willing to do so. The Nature commentator seems to be reasonable:

Wilson et al. have found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be the relic of a structure that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Their work makes us wonder whether other vestiges (such as the human appendix) are as useless as they seem.317

This is not surprising. The more we learn about nature, the more we see the evidence for creation. As Michael Behe notes, "the conclusion of design comes not from what we do not know, but from what we have learned over the past 50 years."318 And Darwinism turns out to be an argument from ignorance, or, in other words, an "atheism of the gaps."

Source and more here - http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted11.php

Since you won't read the link, here are some questions for you to explain away:

1. Why do flightless birds like Ostriches HAVE WINGS?! They don't help them fly...

This and all the other random examples that you gave are all addressed under the vestigial issue above.  Its essentially the same thing.

Like? You show one example...that is not millions.

  They are on that site, and in museums all over the world, browse.

Bird - http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=86 - various fossil birds found in China are among the evidence showing that birds have always been birds and that they did not evolve from any other creature. Darwinists claim that birds evolved from reptiles, but they lack any evidence to prove this claim. All fossil specimens gathered over the past 150 years show that evolutionists' claims are entirely groundless. The 140-million-year-old fossil bird pictured once again proves this fact.

What is the NAME of this fossil so that I can actually look it up? I don't see one on that site.

140 million years old - Liaoxiornis delicatus
130 mil - Liaoningornis
120 mil - Eoalulavis.

etc. etc.

A subsidiary finding of our study is that of the three earliest recorded species of Homo (H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus), it is H. habilis that exhibits facial morphology closest to that expected in their last common ancestor.

[/b]

This evolutionist site (http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/skulls/more_info.htm) shows the different jaws including the al 666 1 correctly under homo sapiens.

[Godfather of Soul]

That’s what my whole thread was about, concrete evidence.  Im not interested in various theories that rely merely on blind predictions. 

So far, I have given dozens of specific examples, where you have given several that talk of ONE or TWO exceptions.  You never really said anything about the 3.5 million Homo Sapiens fossils either...You said that the Homo Habilis fossil found at your alleged homo sapien site was actually homo sapiens sapiens...WRONG.

Of course the sudden emergence of living things with such a perfect design as this cannot be explained by any evolutionist account. That is why Pierre-Paul Grassé says, "We are in the dark concerning the origin of insects."(Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 30. (emphasis added).
The origin of insects clearly proves the fact of creation.

Oh, yeah, sure.  Give me a break...that is PURE speculation.  Terms like "perfect" are worthless in this debate.  My argument is PERFECT and you can't say anything otherwise.  Subjectivity has no place in science.

There’s plenty of horrific conjecture around on the internet and books, you don’t have to look far.

So when I post concrete evidence, and then you dismiss it outright, what am I supposed to do? You don't do a good job of attacking specifics, but rather generalities related to my posts.

No, its because they lack credibility due to the absence of evidence.

Sure, whatever you say.

Right, but why exactly?  It’s preposterous to claim that they developed wings and evolved into birds but you don’t exactly know why?  for what reason?  Why did’nt they
just grow longer necks or start to climb trees?  Why the reason to grow wings and fly?

Because it was advantageous.  Clearly, you cannot explain why birds have wings now outside of the fact that it is advantageous for them to have them.  As for the specific scenarios, there are birds and lizards that fit both of those abovementioned criteria that are not found in the fossil record tens of millions of years ago.

Im sorry but that is just a joke?  I looked at all of this information when you posted it first up and I can tell you that I had a great time laughing at it.  You seriously think this amounts to evidence?  This is definetly your weakest post to date if you seriously believe in this.  Its just an illustration based on pure speculation.

Did you read the bottom of the page?  Those reconstructions are based on the FOSSILS they find!   

HEre is an actual fossil WITH FEATHERS!!

http://www.hmns.org/generic/dinos_press_images.asp?r=1

Sinornithosaurus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornithosaurus



That is not a bird, nor a lizzard and there are clearly signs of FEATHERS.

Beipiaosaurus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beipiaosaurus

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Fossil%20Record/a_therizinosauroid_dinosaur_with.htm

Plenty of fossils there...

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data" (David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Family Tree", Nature, June 1978, p. 40).  Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

Ok, so those two fossils that I showed (which are two of many) that HAVE FEATHERS are reconstructed in museums by paleontolgists just off of speculation.  The colors, ok...but the feathers and the bonestructures etc, and how the skin fits on the bone structure are not conjecture.  Nice citation of someone who says that there are "theories" and does not cite one of them.  Nice case of smoke and mirrors there.

In pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.

Oh yeah, it's purely science fiction because they do all of this based on PURE speculation.  The speculation that there is, such as the "hunting etc." are based on fossil finds and the characteristics of the fossil finds.  For example, Neanderthals are depicted as having fire, tools and hunting implements, walking in groups because that is how they were found.  There will be some amount of speculation to anything that is not based on direct observation, but that does not mean that it is based on NOTHING and that there aren't any archealogical sites that are used in those reconstructions.  I guess forensic scientists cannot reconstruct murder scenes because they weren't there to see them.  That is a weak, extremely weak, argument.  Forensics is incredibly accurate, and when applied to palentology, is accurate as well.  They reconstruct missing people from skulls and body parts all the time, and family members RECOGNIZE them:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/phillips.htm

That is an explanation of how it is done.  Just read it!  Look at how incredibly ACCURATE it is!  And it is often done from SKELETAL remains.

The skull and mandible (Figure 1) were referred to the author for facial reconstruction as a final attempt at identification. The author and the artist had not seen any photographs of the deceased, and this afforded them the opportunity to construct a face on the skull and then compare it with known photographs (Figures 2 and 3).

The parents of the deceased were invited to view the facial reconstruction, and the comments of the mother are as follows: "Although the sculpture does not look exactly like our daughter, the family resemblance is remarkable, so much so that it looks exactly like our niece. We are satisfied now that our daughter is dead."

So bah, with that incredibly weak dismissal of forensic reconstruction.  It is a valuable tool and embraced by damn near every law enforcement agency in the world!



Man, that picture is current!  It must be using the most cutting edge techniques of forensic reconstruction!  WAIT!  IT's 40 years old! and the citation itself is from work that is copyrighted in 1931!  What a great example.  You gotta be joking.

The interesting thing about these 380-million-year-old spider, tick, and centipede fossils is the fact that they are no different from specimens alive today. One of the scientists who examined the fossils remarked that, "they looked like they might have died yesterday."

On thing that I cannot believe that I forgot to mention is that evolution does not say that species cannot live for thousands of years or millions.  So, the fact taht the fossils look the same does not mean that they cannot still be around today...

Another question...do you accept the possibilty of mass, rapid extinction?  If things can die out incredibly quickly, then it is equally plausible that they can evolve incredibly quickly.  What matters is natural selection and the speed at which it transpires.

Here is a history of mass extinctions:

http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_timeline.html

Do you deny the reality of quick, mass extinctions? 

One major characteristic of flies, which emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record, is their amazing flying technique. Whereas a human being is unable to open and close his arms even 10 times a second, an average fly flaps its wings 500 times in that space of time. Moreover, it moves both its wings simultaneously. The slightest dissonance in the vibration of its wings would cause the fly to lose balance, but this never happens.

And

The better we understand the functioning of insect wings, the more subtle and beautiful their designs appear … Structures are traditionally designed to deform as little as possible; mechanisms are designed to move component parts in predictable ways. Insect wings combine both in one, using components with a wide range of elastic properties, elegantly assembled to allow appropriate deformations in response to appropriate forces and to make the best possible use of the air. They have few if any technological parallels - yet.(145 Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical Design of Insect Wings," Scientific American, vol. 263, November 1990, p. 120. (emphasis added)

SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED!  Your sources speculate about design, but that's ok.  When I say that they exist in the way that they do because of natural selection, I am speculating.

Again, your sources speculate that it is impossible for flies to just emerge with great flying technique.  Even though I personally grew fruit flies in a lab with ten eyes, six sets of wings etc. in a matter of Weeks!  But that is inconsequential.  I personally FORCED evolution on the flies through ARTICIAL selection.  When my sources remotely speculate you throw a fit.  Hell, we, as a species, have been guiding evolution for hundreds of years as a species THROUGH artificial selection.  Look at all of the breeds of dogs we have forced into existence and the foods we have manipulated through artifical selection.  We did not create them, but manipulated them and changed them in ways that nature could have done.

Typical expected response, well if you read above you will see that Scutes and Longisquama have already been addressed above, try again.

So we have sources that say different things...therefore NEITHER of us has the upper hand.

Its not really for me to address anything here in this thread, this thread was created in a response to your claim of ‘massive amounts of evidence’ so it was created to simply help you in distributing your immense amounts of proof for the evolution theory.

Ok...so when I use vestigial organs as PROOF of some kind of evolution, then it's not proof because you say so...OK!

However, I remember reading about vestigial organs before, it’s the same old evolutionists primitive thinking.  Just because they dont know the ins and outs of a particular organ, they disregard them as insignifcant and uselesss organs.

Yeah, but you saying that a god who revealed himself to a man in a cave 1200 years ago isn't primitive.  If you are going to throw stones, I will too.

The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997:

Other bodily organs and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too help the body fight infection.

Nice of you to take a 100+ year list and use that as evidence of modern thinking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.

The key is that it's function as a standalone is unknown.  The fact that tens of thousands of them are removed without consequence shows that they are not needed.  The fact that no study has been done in humans is quite significant.

How would we know if the appendix were not vestigial?

Whether the appendix has a function of some sort or not has no direct bearing on whether it is a bona fide vestige. However, at least three possible observations would help negate the conclusion that the human appendix is vestigial, using either the evolutionary or the typological definitions of vestigiality:

    * (1) if the human appendix were actually as large and developed as, say, the caecum of a prosimian or New World monkey;
    * (2) if the human appendix contributed significantly to cellulose fermentation and contained a large amount of cellulose-digesting bacteria;
    * (3) if we could demonstrate via phylogenetic or systematic methods that the apex of the cellulose-fermenting caecum in other primates and the vermiform appendix were not structurally homologous as side branches from the intestine.

An additional possible observation would contradict the conclusion of vestigiality by the evolutionary definition:

    * (4) if phylogenetic methods indicated that no predicted ancestors of humans ever had a large, cellulose-fermenting caecum (i.e., that a large, cellulose-digesting caecum is actually a derived primate character, not a primitive one).

All four of these potential observations are demonstrably false. Additionally, each is based upon positive scientific evidence: (1) we can measure and quantitate the size of the appendix; (2) we can measure and quantitate the amount of cellulose digestion occurring in the appendix; (3) we can observe and compare the relative positions, underlying structures, forms, and development of the organs in the gastrointestinal tracts of various organisms; and (4) we can determine primitive and derived characters by independent phylogenetic analysis. Therefore, the conclusion of vestigiality is susceptible and open to scientific testing against empirical observation. As such the concept of vestigiality is not an "argument from ignorance." It is clearly scientific in nature, based completely upon positive evidence.

Tailbone:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges

Read that page...it describe this better than I can.

Yet another human vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system (for more detail see the sections on the embryonic human tail and the atavistic human tail). Our internal tail is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications), with the only complaint, in a small fraction of patients, being that the removal of the coccyx sadly did not remove their pain (Grossovan and Dam 1995; Perkins et al. 2003; Postacchini Massobrio 1983; Ramsey et al. 2003; Shaposhnikov 1997; Wray 1991). Our small, rudimentary, fused caudal vertebrae might have some minor and inessential functions, but these vertebrae are useless for balance and grasping, their usual functions in other mammals.

regardless of popular misconception, from the beginning of modern evolutionary theory a complete absence of function has not been a requirement for vestigiality

From you:

Wilson et al. have found an important role for a muscle that seemed to be the relic of a structure that had lost its function in the course of evolution. Their work makes us wonder whether other vestiges (such as the human appendix) are as useless as they seem.

Ok, show PROOF and then the science will change, unlike religious dogma which is completely inflexible.

This and all the other random examples that you gave are all addressed under the vestigial issue above.  Its essentially the same thing.

When I ask for specifics, you reply with generalities.  Ironic.

  They are on that site, and in museums all over the world, browse.

And I have seen many of them at my sites and they confirm evolutionary theory.  Millions are a lot though...

140 million years old - Liaoxiornis delicatus

A bird...ok?

Liaoningornis longidigitris

Another bird?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Archaeopteryx, the first "bird"...150 MYA  Clearly a transitional fossil between bird and lizard.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.

But that doesn't count because you don't think it should.

Quote
A subsidiary finding of our study is that of the three earliest recorded species of Homo (H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus), it is H. habilis that exhibits facial morphology closest to that expected in their last common ancestor.


This evolutionist site (http://www.amonline.net.au/human_evolution/skulls/more_info.htm) shows the different jaws including the al 666 1 correctly under homo sapiens.

http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/habilis.htm

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homorudolfensis.htm

Two that say otherwise...we can go back and forth and more will say that it is H. habilis rather than sapien.  We should leave it at a draw.

[Godfather of Soul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?hp&ex=1165813200&en=459da82e1510cecf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

December 10, 2006
Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE

A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.

The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice — the raising of dairy cattle — feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.

Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because there is no further need for the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.

Such a mutation is known to have arisen among an early cattle-raising people, the Funnel Beaker culture, which flourished some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago in north-central Europe. People with a persistently active lactase gene have no problem digesting milk and are said to be lactose tolerant.

Almost all Dutch people and 99 percent of Swedes are lactose-tolerant, but the mutation becomes progressively less common in Europeans who live at increasing distance from the ancient Funnel Beaker region.

Geneticists wondered if the lactose tolerance mutation in Europeans, first identified in 2002, had arisen among pastoral peoples elsewhere. But it seemed to be largely absent from Africa, even though pastoral peoples there generally have some degree of tolerance.

A research team led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now resolved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups of East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of each other and of the European mutation, which keep the lactase gene permanently switched on.

The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff’s group is to report in the journal Nature Genetics on Monday. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago.

Two other mutations were found, among the Beja people of northeastern Sudan and tribes of the same language family, Afro-Asiatic, in northern Kenya.

Genetic evidence shows that the mutations conferred an enormous selective advantage on their owners, enabling them to leave almost 10 times as many descendants as people without them. The mutations have created “one of the strongest genetic signatures of natural selection yet reported in humans,” the researchers write.

The survival advantage was so powerful perhaps because those with the mutations not only gained extra energy from lactose but also, in drought conditions, would have benefited from the water in milk. People who were lactose-intolerant could have risked losing water from diarrhea, Dr. Tishkoff said.

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, an archaeologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the new findings were “very exciting” because they “showed the speed with which a genetic mutation can be favored under conditions of strong natural selection, demonstrating the possible rate of evolutionary change in humans.”

The genetic data fitted in well, she said, with archaeological and linguistic evidence about the spread of pastoralism in Africa. The first clear evidence of cattle in Africa is from a site 8,000 years old in northwestern Sudan. Cattle there were domesticated independently from two other domestications, in the Near East and the Indus valley of India.

Both Nilo-Saharan speakers in Sudan and their Cushitic-speaking neighbors in the Red Sea hills probably domesticated cattle at the same time, since each has an independent vocabulary for cattle items, said Dr. Christopher Ehret, an expert on African languages and history at the University of California, Los Angeles. Descendants of each group moved southward and would have met again in Kenya, Dr. Ehret said.

Dr. Tishkoff detected lactose tolerance among both Cushitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan groups in Kenya. Cushitic is a branch of Afro-Asiatic, the language family that includes Arabic, Hebrew and ancient Egyptian.

Dr. Jonathan Pritchard, a statistical geneticist at the University of Chicago and the co-author of the new article, said that there were many signals of natural selection in the human genome, but that it was usually hard to know what was being selected for. In this case Dr. Tishkoff had clearly defined the driving force, he said.

The mutations Dr. Tishkoff detected are not in the lactase gene itself but a nearby region of the DNA that controls the activation of the gene. The finding that different ethnic groups in East Africa have different mutations is one instance of their varied evolutionary history and their exposure to many different selective pressures, Dr. Tishkoff said.

“There is a lot of genetic variation between groups in Africa, reflecting the different environments in which they live, from deserts to tropics, and their exposure to very different selective forces,” she said.

People in different regions of the world have evolved independently since dispersing from the ancestral human population in northeast Africa 50,000 years ago, a process that has led to the emergence of different races. But much of this differentiation at the level of DNA may have led to the same physical result.

As Dr. Tishkoff has found in the case of lactose tolerance, evolution may use the different mutations available to it in each population to reach the same goal when each is subjected to the same selective pressure. “I think it’s reasonable to assume this will be a more general paradigm,” Dr. Pritchard said.

[RR-X]

Scientists have never actually seen an evolutionary process take place. It would be impossible anyway as they hide behind the convenient excuse of millions of years. This is not good science though as to conclusively prove something it must be shown to repeatedly happen in a lab situation - or as close as you can get to a lab situation. Evolution is just another religion - an unprovable belief, a faith, something stopping people reaching their full potential. Why are monkeys still here thousands of years after humans came on the scene if we were the next step and an improvement on them? If Darwinism is correct they would have been gone long ago - his book WAS called (full title) 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'. The title alone suggests all primates should be gone. Screw Darwin anyway his idea was stolen from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin from his own book 'Zoonomia'.

Unfortunately Darwins 'theory' seems to be the basis for much of todays extreme racism - a dumb concept known as right racism. Extreme whites believe nature will eradicate everything it no longer needs - therefore it created AIDs to wipe out the black race. Their proof that nature wants to wipe out blacks is that AIDs effects many more blacks than whites and that black females get AIDs more than males because of 'sterilization'.

To believe in evolution would mean you believe that we evolved from rocks - be real this is an unreal concept. Evolution exists to a certain degree and is limited to within species - not the capability to go from one species to another.

[Godfather of Soul]

Add to this if you like:

http://immortal-technique.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.0.html

[murdaLicious]

evolution is a fact, bro.  Your post shows some SERIOUS misunderstanding of the basic premise of the theory of evolution.

[RR-X]

If evolution was a fact it wouldn't be called theory. Please elaborate on the basic premise - I don't think it gets any more basic than you believing we evolved from rocks.

[murdaLicious]

If evolution was a fact it wouldn't be called theory. Please elaborate on the basic premise - I don't think it gets any more basic than you believing we evolved from rocks.

First of all, gravity is often referred to as "The Theory of Gravity," and yet gravity is an undeniable fact.

Secondly:

Fundmental misunderstanding #1: Nowhere does evolution claim that we evolved from rocks.

Fundamental misunderstanding #2: To answer your earlier question, about why are there still monkeys - There are still monkeys because we did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved from Great Apes.  The reason there are still Great Apes is because there are hella kinds of apes, and we evolved from one species, not Gorillas or Orungutans or Chimpanzees, but a different kind all together, which is no longer around because they became humans.  "Apes," or "monkeys" are not a single group, but instead many, many different species that do not evolve in sync with eachother.

And yes, I guess shit happening over millions of years is a "convenient excuse."

[RR-X]

Let me guess - billions of years ago the Earth was covered in magma. Over millions of years it cooled down. Steam created clouds. It rained for millions of years. Magma became rock. Oceans formed. Out of these oceans came the first life forms. Over millions of years they evolved into everything else.

Fundamental misunderstanding #1: Nowhere did I claim that evolution claims we evolved from rocks. This is an observation - a question that requires answering - a question arising from a flawed idea.

Fundamental misunderstanding #2: Where is the evidence to show the inbetween stage of great ape to human? Don't get this confused with where is the missing link although you can answer that too if you like.

[NSKerben]

Virus evolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_10.html
Not taking millions of years happen in front of people ... shit even the catholic church accepts evolution.
This shit happens with other viruses.
FAIL

Fossil Evidence:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_01.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/