Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Loudmouth]

Then I will put the question to you.... what did he say before, or after, these statements that can change their content or their meaning? They are complete thoughts.

Already addressed that.

What Patterson could have said, and exactly what he was saying in context, is that we shouldn't assume that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of any living species. Transitional and ancestral are two different things. As described by Darwin:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Therefore, transitional fossils inform us of what was happening at the actual split between lineages, but are not to be used as the actual ancestors.

 

[Hieronymus]

Funny how you call people trolls for using the same arguments you use.

-----------

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, I see that the post has run it's course and, now the same old arguments, that have nothing to do with the original post, rear their heads.

See you in another thread where we can continue this.

 

[Lulav]