Challenging Evolution

[JesusPosse]

Cool Skulls lol

 

[Ishmael Borg]

okay,seeing as nobody is really making any progress...........at all.I have a question for all of you,Creationist and Evolutionist alike:

Is what you Beleive True all the Time?

Is it true in all times?

Is it always firm in its beleif and never changing?

My Father asked his sunday school class these things,and all of them had been arguing with him about this for quitea while.But we went through the relegions,buddhism,islam,judiasm,Evolution,reincarnation,satanic ones.and of course Christianity.The only one that stoop up to all these questions is Christianity.Oh sure you can come out with all this,"The Bible uses metophors"Junk.And its true,the Bible does use metophors,but everytime there is a metophor in the bible,Jesus explains the lesson to the people.And when it comes down to it,Evolution is just a silly idea.

Well, considering all the evidence you've presented, I'm convinced!

 

[razzelflabben]

Walk me thru this, please. Gluadys is saying that the inability of horses and donkeys to produce fertile offspring is evidence that both horses and donkeys came from a common ancestor. Which is evolution.

Now, please go back to the lab studies that I have referred to where different populations of a single species are placed in separate environments and you get 2 new completely interfertile populations -- new species -- but they can't breed with each other -- different kinds. How is that mimicking the TOC?

We don't "assume", that. We conclude that. Very different things.

Huh? Evolution produced horses which can breed with other horses and donkeys that can breed with other donkeys. No problem. But horses and donkeys can't interbreed because, guess what? Horses and donkeys are separate species. They are not "evolving to" mules. I think that is the fallacy. Mules are not the new species. They are a side product of the speciation of donkeys and horses from a common ancestor.

And what evidence, apart form the fossil record with is inconclusive evidence, do you offer that horses and donkeys are indeed came from the same ancestor.

 

[razzelflabben]

You have asked many times for people not to make assumptions about you.

I ask you for the same courtesy. Do not make assumptions about what I will and will not accept.

Show me the answers you have for all these things. If I find them acceptable, I will say so. If I do not find them acceptable, I will state clearly why I do not.

That is a promise.

Okay, you are right, I am wrong, all the questions I raised about the TOE were not asked, the definition I put forth for kind was addressed, you have accepted the original theory of C as put forth in the bible which is why you started a new thread discussing the teachings of people who interpreted the theory. You understand my point about "new" species that cannot reproduce becoming extinct, because I am too dense to understand that reproduction is not necessary for life to continue. Yeah, I got it all wrong, please accept this formal appology. I'm sorry

This is the second time you have spoken about proposals of yours being ignored.

The original theory says, that kinds reproduce after themselves. And that life was created after it's kind. Therefore, kind would be living organisms that reproduce similar offspring. But you already addressed that definition, again I am sorry. I don't recall the post, but I am sure it was there.

I have not knowingly ignored anything you have said. (I can't speak for others.)

I agree, you are not the type of poster to perposely ignore what is said, and neither am I, but I also am the type of poster who can grow frustrated at people refusing to listen and sometimes that comes accross in posts to those that do not diserve the harshness and for that I am truely sorry if I have done that with you. My only real issue with you is that you tend to get off topic by trying to prove that E is possible when I have no issue with that. My issue is that the "proof" we have is not sufficient to call E truth. I have stated many times why I believe this, for example, the fossil record is only a small bit of evidence in a world of possibilities. To counter this, I am usually shown more fossil evidence to prove that the TOE is more fact. This totally evades the issue. The fossil record does indicate E not a problem. But the fossil record is not enough evidence to claim overwhelming proof. It is enough to say that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the TOE, but these are two completely different things and is the source of much of the argueing between the two theories.

I ask you for the second time---point me to something I have ignored, and I will respond to it.

The only thing to date that I have not heard from you on, at least as my memory serves, is the definition of kind, and the above clarification on the fossil record.

(Failure to give a specific example of me ignoring something you have said will be taken as admission that you have accused me falsely.)

How do you know that? Where does it say that in the "original theory"?

Forgot what this was in reference too.

All it says is that creatures reproduce "after their kind". It doesn't say they are not clones. They could be clones for all we know.

(As a matter of fact, many species do reproduce by cloning themselves.)

Your right again, the plants and animals can be cloning, but man cannot. The would then mean that the TOC would predict that some animals would reproduce via male and female and others would reproduce via cloning. Which is what we see in nature and is consistant with the observations, but the theory has been falsified, remember how many times I have been told that here on this thread. So how then can we have predictions that are observed in science and still have a falsified theory?

Darwin personally didn't. He knew nothing about genetics or the genetic code. And when genes and the mode of inheritance was first discovered, it was not immediately apparent this new knowledge would be compatible with evolution.

But it is so compatible that it is now part of TOE.

And it is consistant with the TOC. Even to the extent that man is desendent from one pair of original creation. Hummm, more scientific evidence to disprove the TOC. Oh that's right, if the theory of C changes it's predictions to fit the evidence, then it is a flawed theory, but if the TOE does this, it is sound scientific methodology, I keep forgetting this bit of information. Short term memory lose I guess.

Darwin did know two things: species produce after their kind and children are not clones of their parents (Darwin was not conversant with micro-organisms which are clones of their parents.)

The biblical TOC says that God created man male and female. This indicated no cloning on the part of mankind. Again, we see consistancy with the scientific evidence. Hummm.

Note that the two things Darwin knew (even without knowing genetics) is one more thing than is presented in the TOC orginal theory, which only knows that species reproduce after their kind. Says nothing about not reproducing exact likenesses of the parent.

Have you read the theory carefully? Animals may or may not be clones. They were created after their kind. Man cannot be cloned. God created male and female. What is disproven from a scientific standpoint? I am really confused by your claims here.

Jet Black gave you the link, but just in case you can't find his post here it is again.

http://christianforums.com/t736563

I would be very interested in your comments.

Already done, if you miss it let me know and I will try to repeat it.

Yes, why don't we. Do you want to stick with fossil evidence? or would you like to discuss endogenous retroviral insertions? Or perhaps biogeographical evidence? or the twin-nested hierarchy? or one of the other evidences in that list of 29 you were referred to early on.

Or something else altogether?

I am happy to go with whatever you choose.

I would like to know which of these 29 is not 1. related to the fossil record, and 2. is unique to the TOC. That will clear up a lot of things. I have asked several times now but it has gone unanswered unless I haven't gotten to it yet. I'll work at it another 20 min. then must be off.

 

[razzelflabben]

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

This one. A new species of salmon has evolved in the last 70 years from the existing species. Both species are doing well; neither becoming extinct. The two species do reproduce within their species but not between the species.

In this case, species A -- the original-- mates and lays eggs midstream in the creeks where breeding occurs. Species B mates and lays eggs at the edges of the stream. So individuals of both species are present in the same streams at the same time, but don't mate with individuals of the other species.

But, they are still reproducing!

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzelflabben, thanks for reassuring me and letting me know that you were paying attention when I pointed out all those other evidences besides the fossil record, you know, the ones that I even posted in large bold italic underlined text for you. I would have included a siren flashing lights and a loudspeaker if I knew how, just to make sure that you heard them in the event of a loud lorry going by or something. It's really good to know that you aren't just ignoring all those piles of independent but corroborating evidence and don't continually pretend that the whole of evolution is based on just the fossil record and keep saying it over and over again regardless of the numbers of times that people point it out to you. I mean it only took how many attempts to tell you that evolution happens to populations for example. you know if you are going to continue this conversation you really do need to pay more attention to what people are telling you, and stop isolating and ignoring things as you find them inconvenient to your argument.

Yeah, that's right, I ask for evidence that is not related to the fossil record and you give me biogeographical evidence (translation-fossil record) I ask for evidence unique to the theory of E and you give me speciation (also acceptable to the original theory of C.) I explain my view of population vs. individual and you give me a lecture about how I am not listening to your posts. Good argueing, I'm impressed. I can see why proving the TOE is so important to you because we are seeing that emotional argueing I have been accused of all over this post.

 

[lucaspa]

I did not say that the observations alway suggest infertility, but rather that some did suggest reproductive problems.

Can you please list your "some"? If it is not 'all', then there is no problem for TOE, is there?

I noticed you said "breed after its kind" as everyone on this forum will tell you, we have no definition for kind, so you need to explain what you mean by that. Do you know a definition that no one else here knows or are you reading into the theory so as to make a point?

I am following what you told me about TOC -- reading Genesis 1. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. " Also, other passages in the Bible (which you told me to cross-reference) says that kinds breed after their kind. So ... by the sources you gave me for TOC, "kind" is a plant or animal that can breed with other members of its kind and make fertile offspring. Right? If it is the wrong definition of kind for TOC, please tell me why.

Now, this is nearly identical with biological species concept.

we have this information being inconclusive. level one, many of the evidences of speciation presented on this thread, allow for doubts as to the viability of the breeding of the "new" species. Inconclusive evidence for or against.

Not the evidence I present. I have looked at the papers I present to you and I assure you that they have done the breeding experiments and the new species can make fertile offspring within the species. Or you can check me and look it up for yourself. That's why I give you the references.

and level two, this information is not unique to the TOE, and at least in part is permitted in the original theory of C.

How is this permitted in the original TOC? I've looked where you told me to look: Genesis 1 and other cross-references to "kinds" in the Bible, and they all say a kind can only breed with its own kind. Where do you get the idea that making new species/kinds is permitted in TOC?

Populations always start with two individuals, not hundreds or thousands,

Where did you get this idea? Populations nearly always have hundreds or thousands. Only in what is called "founder events" do you have two. That's when two individuals -- such as a pair of flies -- gets blown across the intervening ocean to Hawaii.

Instead, what you have is a population of hundreds. One of those hundreds has a variation that works well in that environment. This individual mates with one who doesn't and has 4 kids. By the odds, 2 of them have inherited the variation. So, in generation 2 you have 2 individuals. Now, those 2 also do well in the Struggle for Existence and they mate with two individuals without the variation. Again, for simplicity, each pair has 4 kids and half the kids get the variation. So, in generation 3 we have 4 individuals with the variation. This keeps going for 6 more generations. At this point, we have 512 individuals (at least) with the variation. So, the population was never less than hundreds. But the composition of the population changed over the generations.

(not because of design mind you).

Plants and animals are designed. Designed by natural selection. That is what creationism simply refuses to accept: natural selection is an unintelligent proces to get design.

As I was taught the TOE everything evolved from a single cell.

What you should have been taught is that all plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor. And that ancestor was a single-celled organism. You seem to have combined that into the misrepresentation you have now.

What caused that first living cell to "breed" when it became a viable living organism,

Chemistry caused it to divide into 2 cells. We have seen this with protocells. It involves the unique chemical properties of water. When the protocell reaches a certain size, the interaction between water and the cell membrane is such that the lowest energy is achieved if there are 2 slightly smaller cells. So van der Waal's forces and hydrophobic (water hating) interactions cause the cell to divide and "reproduce". You can see something similar with oil droplets. Big ones tend to break up to make 2 smaller droplets.

where was the population that allowed it to mate,

Single cells reproduce asexually, so there is no mating. But evolution still happens because there are still copying error in the DNA to make variation between single-celled organisms.

Now, sexual reproduction began among single celled organisms where there is no male and female. Instead, bacteria today exchange DNA in plasmids. Today some species of amoeba reproduce asexually sometimes and sexually some other times.

Oh I forgot, we can't ask such questions because there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE, therefore there are no unanswered questions remaining.

Go ahead and ask questions. I don't mind.

There are still unanswered questions. For instance, we don't have the exact lineage for many plants and animals. The fossil record is too spotty. We are not sure how the nucleus evolved. What we don't have anymore is possible evidence that could falsify evolution -- show it to be wrong. We have done all the tests we can think of to show common ancestry and natural selection to be wrong, and we haven't been able to. So, while we don't know all the various ways that populations can become isolated, we do know that, when they are isolated facing new environments, new species will evolve.

The TOE is based on the idea of a single organism, not a population of organisms.

Sorry, but TOE is based on the idea of common ancestors. Not a single organism. If life arose from non-life via protocells, as I think is likely, there were billions of organisms. If life arose by the RNA world, there were billions of RNA molecules. At least! Probably trillions or even higher.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, you introduced burial as a red herring, a diversionary tactic.

Burial is irrelevant to the time differential.

(If it is absolutely necessary I can reference the posts so that you can see for yourself who said what when. But I do think you are capable of doing this yourself.)

The distance in time between the most recent known dinosaur fossil and the oldest known hominid fossil was the original point.

What other logical way is there to interpret that gap that to say dinosaurs became extinct some 60 million years before humans existed-----other than by a wishful reliance on evidence not yet observed?

Right, and burial being one of the possible reasons for the observations. But of course you are right again. I am so incredably stupid I don't even know what I am saying in my own posts. A post in which I am putting forth possible theories, is in reallity a post offering red herring. Maybe I am too stupid to know what red herring is too. Do we have a fossil record to prove what red herring is?

 

[lucaspa]

Yeah, that's right, I ask for evidence that is not related to the fossil record and you give me biogeographical evidence (translation-fossil record)

Razzel, biogeography is done with living organisms, not fossils.

I ask for evidence unique to the theory of E and you give me speciation (also acceptable to the original theory of C.)

The original theory of C that you pointed me to was Genesis 1. Kinds in Genesis 1 is equivalent to species. But since kinds can only be within their own kind, then by the original theory of C speciation has to equal the formation of new kinds. And that isn't possible.

After all, if speciation is allowed in the Ape kind, then humans are simply variation in a kind. And not created. Right?

 

[razzelflabben]

not only that, but assuming geologists could not tell that a person was buried, their burial would interfere by making them look older than they really were (deeper down). this doesn't really help razzelflabben's case very much, as it doesn't account for the several tens of millions of years between humans and dinos.

But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities. But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.

 

[razzelflabben]

No problem with that. TOE is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
But we should not ignore the fossil record either.



I do so assert. I am glad you do not disagree.



No problem. All lines of evidence are overwhelmingly in favour of TOE.



Because you said earlier that you were open to the possibility of humans and dinosaurs existing simultaneously, and you have resisted the addition of the word "existed" to the observation that dinosaurs became extinct before man.

Open to possibility does not equal proof of. Would you be happier if I said, The dinosaurs became extinct before the possible existance of man but this is not a known fact so therefore is only speculation. Sounds like a lot of words simply to say that what we know is that dino's became extinct before man.




I have not made that comparison either, but I know you are dealing with multiple posters here, so I don't fault you for being sometimes confused as to who said what.[/QUOTE]

 

[lucaspa]

But, they are still reproducing!

Not between the species, Razzel! Within the separate species, of course they are reproducing! That's what we are trying to tell you.

So individuals of both species are present in the same streams at the same time, but don't mate with individuals of the other species.

Originally, there were only salmon who mated and laid eggs in the middle of the stream. One species of hundreds of individuals. Then one of the female individuals had a variation that caused her to lay her eggs at the shallow part of the stream. For whatever reason (and we don't know it yet), her offspring did better and more of them survived and returned to the stream to mate than did offspring of those that laid eggs in the center of the stream. Those children inherited their mother's variation to lay eggs at the edges of the stream. The males also had the tendency to mate away from the center. Over the generations, these individuals prospered at sea and continued to have good numbers of them return to the stream to mate. They tended to choose mates who also mated at the edge of the stream instead of the middle. So after 70 years (about 30 generations) there are now 2 populations in the stream. Those that mate and lay eggs in the center and those that mate and lay eggs at the edge. The two populations do not reproduce with each other. But within each population, they reproduce just fine.

So now you have 2 separate reproducing populations where once there was one. Speciation. Remember, that's what a species is: a group of individuals that freely reproduce with others of their population but not with other populations. (and that is what a kind is according to the original TOC)

In this case, those that had the variation to lay eggs at the edge of the stream found a lot of new room for their eggs.

 

[Jet Black]

But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities. But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.

being buried in caves has the same problem, remember you are trying to close tha gap between humans and dinosaurs, but not managing it yet. they still appear some 60 million years apart. oh, I did apologise for being a bit short with you. I think the problem is that you seem to be about 5 pages behind the rest of the conversation alot of the time, so you are still replying to things that have been dealt with a couple of pages later. I should be a bit calmer really, you are replying to alot of people so it is fair enough. I'll let you catch up a bit.

 

[lucaspa]

And what evidence, apart form the fossil record with is inconclusive evidence, do you offer that horses and donkeys are indeed came from the same ancestor.

Comparative morphology and physiology that has them placed in the same genus (by the creationist Linneaus). Genetic analysis (independent of the above) which does the same thing.

Think of family relationships in humans. One of my daughters is the spitting image of me (poor thing) and the other is nealy identical to her mother. However, go back a generation, and both look a little like their grandparents on that side of the family, but not as close as they look to their father and mother. Go back to their great-grandparents and there is a little family resemblance (particularly in the noses, each family has distinctive noses) but not much else. The more closely the resemblance, the closer to the common ancestor.

Also, species that are very far apart from the common ancestor won't even try mating. A cow and a horse mate? Nope. No, the mating cues only work if the species recently diverged from the common ancestor. So, the fact that they try mating indicates recent common ancestry. That they can make a viable hybrid -- the mule -- also indicates recent common ancestry.

 

[razzelflabben]

Where does TOC predict this scenario? And where and how does it explain this scenario.

As far as I know it IS unique to TOE, and is contradictory to all I have ever heard about TOC.

I don't remember what this is refering too so I can't answer.

I know this is your position, but it is a misrepresentation of TOE. Look at the scenario again:


Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X

We would expect that B will not breed successfully with any of A, C or X.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with A shows that speciation has occurred and B is a new species. If it continued to breed successfully with A it would be at best a variant or sub-species of A. It would not be a new species.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with C shows that although both are derived from A, they are different species. If they did interbreed successfully, B and C would be variants of the same species, not two different species.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with X shows that X is a genuine new species, not simply a variant or sub-species of B.

In short, the inter-breeding problems you are pointing to are not a problem for TOE. They are expected evidence that evolution has in fact happened.

And we have seen this scenario, both in nature and in controlled experiments. That is why we can state with confidence that evolution is a fact.

First, note that we looking at four populations, not four individuals. I grant that if we had only one A, one B, one C and one X, B would be in a real pickle, because it cannot reproduce with any of the others.

But that is not the case. Each of these is a population of many organisms.

Each B has plenty of other Bs to choose mates from. And each reproducing pair of Bs will easily produce a crop of baby Bs. And when that generation matures they will produce another generation of Bs.

The same is true of A, C and X.

Breeding across species lines is not necessary to keep the reproduction line running.

There is nothing to prevent As producing more As, Bs producing more Bs, Cs producing more Cs and Xs producing more Xs.

There is also nothing to prevent part of population C separating and diverging into population Q which is no longer able to mate with population C. It will however, keep on reproducing more Qs, just at the remaining Cs will keep on reproducing more Cs.


Now as to the one living cell organism. No we cannot state that all life rose from a single living cell. But we can say that there is good evidence that all forms of life are derived from a population of single-celled organisms.

Do you want to assert that TOC claims that as part of its theory too?

First, this is to assume that population b is breedable within itself. If not, then popluation b becomes extinct, I can't fathom how we don't understand that offspring that cannot reproduce, can survive. I understand what you are saying about a, b ,c,and x and any other letter we want to use, but what I am talking about is the inability to be viable breeders. If the subspecies cannot reproduce, it dies, dead subspecies, cannot evolve.

Now on to the subject of one living cell organisms, First, this is different from what we were taught, secondly, you state that we cannot state taht all life rose form a single living cell. Yet we have overwhelming evidence to say that they did? How please. It is speculation. We have more problems with the theory when we try to figure out how these single cell organisms not only evolved into creatures, but how did they evolve into male and female? These are more questions that arise that the TOC does predict. What predictions can the TOE offer?

 

[lucaspa]

Razzel, you blew by this question in order to question the common ancestry of donkey and horse. So let me put the question to you again:

Now, please go back to the lab studies that I have referred to where different populations of a single species are placed in separate environments and you get 2 new completely interfertile populations -- new species -- but they can't breed with each other -- different kinds. How is that mimicking the TOC?

How are the lab studies mimicking TOC? I'd really like to know.

 

[razzelflabben]

Please note what I have bolded in your statement and in mine. Note that I was not the one who said the species could not reproduce. I said we know by observation that some species are not separate creations. We know by observation that they are derived from other species.

They are no longer inter-fertile with the species they are derived from. But both the original species and the new species are still very capable of reproducing within their own population group. So they are not going extinct either.

Lucaspa gave you a very appropriate example in the two recently speciated salmon species. Both the parent species and the daughter species are continuing to reproduce with no problems. They just don't do it with each other.

The Drosophila experiment I cited earlier shows the same pattern with fruit flies. So do both the other examples I included in the same post. Nothing has blocked reproduction in either the parent species or the new species.

And these observations are not inconsistant with the original TOC. It may not predict such, but is not inconsistant. But what you are talking about is interbreeding, I am talking about breeding. And of the sites I have been pointed to, there are questions to the "new" species being able to be viable breeders. But again, I must be too stupid to understand that species do not have the ability to breed can survive and even better, evolve.

 

[Jet Black]

I don't see your problem razzelflabben. where does it go wrong for you?

population A is split into 2 populations, B and C. population B continues to breed amongst itself, and population C continues to breed amongst itself. over time B and C drift apart such that after a time T, no member of population B can breed with a member of population C, however all the members of B can breed with one another, and all the members of C can breed with one another. no loss of breeding viability within those groups ever occured.

can you tell me what you find wrong with that?

 

[lucaspa]

But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities.

OK, stop and think about this a moment. A grave is dug. That means that the fill of the grave is different in composition from the layers of sediment around it. Right? As you dig the grave, you break up the layers with your shovel or whatever tool you are using. Then you just dump what you scooped out back in, with it all mixed up. So, as a paleontologist later looking at the site, as you carefully excavate, you see that the dirt/rock around the body is all broken up bits and pieces. Then you come to the edge of the grave and have a transition from all jumbled up to regular layers.

But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.

Razzel, you don't need to play the martyr. And that isn't going to make your ideas valid or invalid. What you need to do is think about the ideas you are posting in an attempt to show them wrong. Before you post them. If you can't show them wrong after a real honest, hard try, then put them out there to see if we can.

However, if you don't use basic common sense on your ideas or put a little thought into them, then you can hardly complain if someone impolitely comments that the idea is silly. You can rightly call them on their manners, but that isn't going to save the idea.

 

[razzelflabben]

The troublesome post is post #611. I had just written a lengthy post describing some missing links. You rsponded to that post, but excluded all of the references to missing links with an ellipsis. Then you asked, "Where are the missing links?" This is either a big blunder, or it is a deliberate attempt to ignore evidence. You have been told about it several times by several people, and you have not retracted. That is the problem. It is unethical to ignore somebody's evidence and then pretend he presented no evidence.

You mean this post, Herein was your first mistake dear one, you assumed that E was not possible. Of course it is possible. If you had begun your quest by assuming what was possible, you would not have had such a life changing experience.

But, thank you for the story, it was definately interesting. I do not know what makes you think that I have not spent time studying, but that is okay, many people think I am not very smart because I do not relate names and dates well, but I assure you, I do understand the data. I also understand that there are many unanswered questions and those are what allow for possibilities for other answers. Why is that so beyond understanding? Even from your story, I cannot fathom how you can claim to seek truth and yet be satified at finding truth when there are a multitude of unanswered questions surrounding the theory of Evolution. How does one do that except for faith? And faith is the root of a belief system and I have been told repeatedly that the TOE is not a belief system. How do me make that jump? Where are the missing links?

Where the last quesiton is directly related to the faith involved in making assertions that do not exist. I am beginning to see how you people can claim that the TOC has overwhelming proof, because you make jumps, and assertions in your understandings without any reason to do so. Note, the post was referring to leaps of faith, belief systems, not the evidences of or against the TOE. To infer that the question was suddenly reverting to a subject that the post did not address, is a leap of faith, that would be for the purpose of assuming that you know what I have believed, a leap of faith that requires you to ignore all the posts in which I have told you my beliefs and assume that by changing the topic you can know truth. Now it is becoming clear how you can assume that the TOE is fact, because you are making assumption jumps that simply are not there. Sorry, I made a bad choice of words, forgetting how much faith is required to believe in E. Oh that's right, E is not a belief system. I am so having a hard time keeping up with all of these rules about what is and is not allowed in the discussion. Can sombody please make a list for me so I can print it and tape it to my computer. That way I can remember that C cannot be proven through science, even though it is, and I can remember that we have to make jump commections in order to know truth, and so forth and so on.

I can discuss the evidence you presented, but since the theme of your post seemed to be that your questioning awakened your sense of being, I felt that that was an issue better addressed, sorry for missing the point of your post. Please clarify the point you wanted to make so I can address it.