Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer, but that calculation was joke - a famous example of the fact that a scientist way out of their field is just another blogger with a keyboard. Hoyle, like a lot of physicist/mathematical/engineering types, did not understand biological evolutionary theory. Any biologist with a semester course in statistics can take it apart in fifteen seconds, starting with all of Hoyle's assumptions. btw: Those are actually much better odds than the usual ones attributed to Hoyle's calculations. Did you by chance overlook an exponent in there ?
Oh, and why change the topic? Lets get back onto Evolution. So, John, whats your evidence against evolution?
You refuting conjecture with conjecture and present the readers with a stopgap wiki link? Not good. From Origin of Species- "Difficulties of the Theory": Darwin assumed that transitional species would, one day, be found. But they have not. Do you know of any? Darwin was fully aware of this and hoped that one day they would be found but that just hasnt happened. The burden of proof is on you redwards. Now you shall proceed to offer proof or acknowledge the problem.
Not sure what you mean by this. Hoyle's argument was absurd. I hear this claim all the time. I'm going to have to ask you to define transitional species for me, as you understand it.
But that is part of the problem. You cannot accept things that are clearly defined. We see species surviving intact and complete for millions of years, with no changes. Even the simplest life forms. That or was see what? Extinction. That is fact, anything else is perception, assumption. Bacteria Snakes Apes Dinosaurs Where is the transition?
This is hilarious. You're refusing to define something you don't believe in, for fear that I might be able to provide an example of it. Until you can tell me what you're daring me to provide an example of, I'm just going to laugh quietly at your spin.
I am not the one who changes definitions and as i said that is part of the problem. Same link to the definition of transition as before. Maybe you missed it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ansition&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title Specifically: The transition state is followed by the formation of more stable intermediates prior to product formation. Just give an example. Thats all.
You see, another problem is when survivability (of a species) has run its course then the point of extinction has been reached. This is a fact and has been shown to occur on numerous occasions. Minor changes and adaptations do not prove evolution. If you can prove it then now is the time to do so. Given a stable environment presents absolutely no need to evolve. Sorry.
Actually, that's not true. Even if the outward appearance remains the same, the genes can evolve dramatically. The fastest evolving creature on the planet, larger than bacteria, is the tuatara, a kind of lizard. It looks like ancient reptiles. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23812858/
Plenty have been found. You are willfully ignorant: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4 Strictly speaking, every species is a transition species, since there is no fixed boundary between one and another. My favorite example is petrel, a bird that lives along entire Arctic Circle. Petrels in Scandinavia can interbreed with petrels in northern Russia. The latter can interbreed with petrels in Siberia. Siberian petrels can interbreed with Alaskan petrels. Alaskan petrels can interbreed with Canadian petrels, and the latter with Greenland petrels. But the Atlantic ocean between Greenland and Scandinavia is too wide for petrels to fly across, so no contact between two populations ever occured. Guess what -- Scandinavian and Greenland petrels are so far apart genetically, they are not interfertile. By definition, they are different species. So where does "Scandinavian petrel" end and where does "Greenland petrel" begin? Answer -- nowehere. There is no BOUNDARY, but rather a smooth progression of genetic differences, with probability of successful interbreeding less and less the farther geographically apart are any two populations. A petrel from Eastern Siberia can interbreed -- with difficulty, -- with both Scandinavian and Greenland petrels. By your definition, it is a "transitional species". Similar examples of genetic drift defined by geography exist, but ALL animals that ever lived were part of similar drifts defined by TIME. "Species" is not an immobile unit, every species is constantly in flux, and every species is a "transition" one.
Okay. Would something like this do it for you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mean, provided any of these creatures existed.
Spidergoat, we are talking about going from proteins, basically nothing to a human. A human with the capacity to go into space to walk on the moon, use reason, apply emotion. And your proof is a lizard? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What if it is? You're attempting to construct an argument from incredulity based on the most extreme possible example. More than a little disingenuous.
