Fossil Hominids

Mallon said:

Actually, we can test hypotheses about how we were created. Evolution predicts fossil intermediates in the sedimentary record. Special creation predicts the sudden appearance of man with no fossil intermediates. The fossil record contains an excellent series of fossil intermediates between humans and other apes. Therefore, the predictions of evolution are supported and special creation is falsified.

You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. It isn't evolutionary history itself that must be repeatable, but the tests used to infer that history. Tests include things like cladistic, developmental, biostratigraphic, and biogeographic analyses. These must be observable and repeatable.

Click to expand...

Mallon said:

The only distinction is one of time. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time. Here's a good analogy I found recently:

Click to expand...

fdavis said:

Actually, it seems to be someone else who doesn't understand the scientific method - or at least when it can and cannot be used. You are beginning with Naturalistic assumptions to try and make your point.

Click to expand...

You are assuming intermediates, but you cannot demonstrate that what you are talking about are truly intermediate forms. Why could they not each one be separate special creations by God?

Click to expand...

fdavis said:

That is what you say. But show me the science. Macro evolution cannot be demonstrated scientifically. It is an extrapolation with no empirical basis.

Click to expand...

Your analogy is interesting, but flawed. It assumes that the changes in color are the same as biological changes. It simply is not true.

Click to expand...