Hi Bex

I’m glad that you can at least recogize and avoid fishing lures when you are considering these questions.

One of the problems I’ve found with this book, and I’ve only just started to look at it is that it is so superficial and contains error after error. The pictures he presents have in some cases a superficial resemblance to ancient creatures though in many even this is lacking and in quite a few pictures the modern creature and the fossil are clearly not even of the same species or genus, some are even from different orders. The author clearly has no idea at all about how to indentify or classify organisms fossil or modern yet this book is claimed to reveal a great truth! If we look further he does not show the specific detailed study that science uses to identify the relationships between fossil and modern organisms. Superficiality can lead you astray as convergent evolution can produce dramatic similarities with no direct genetic relationship what so ever. Detailed studies will show the difference but that’s not what Yahya is presenting he is just presenting superficial resemblances to build a case to the lay audience who don’t understand what is really required to prove such relationships and even in this he fails given that he can’t even get the genus right on many of his examples.

Of course there is another problem with his argument; even if true it’s not fatal to ToE that some creatures have existed for a very long time. We already know of a few that have existed virtually unchanged for many millions of years. These are creatures whose niche has not changed significantly enough to change them or wipe them out in that time. Crocodiles and sharks are two well known examples. Of course, even in these creatures, when you look at the details they have changed just not so dramatically as many other creatures. Evolution explains that creatures are shaped by their niche, they evolved to be the best fit possible to that niche, if the niche does not change for a long period they will not change for that same period of time. Today being a shark is still a good way of making a living so sharks persist. Why should is surprise us to find more creatures that have likewise found long term stable niches? Evolution does not predict change for changes sake it predicts change to match conditions. Conditions on this planet usually change over time, most niches are not stable long term and organisms have to adapt to keep up and so change but there are a number of well known exceptions and so there are a number of well known long term survivors. None of this should surprise or bother anyone who actually understands what ToE says.

What bothers me is that Yahya is presenting false evidence and a misunderstanding of ToE in an attempt to discredit it. Straw men at 12 oclock. It’s getting really silly. What I want to find is someone who actually understands what ToE says who can stand up and say they have a problem with it. Is there anyone out there who can? Are there any real objections to ToE or are they all, like Russ T’s recent examples and CTD’s many posts here against it, based on ignorance or misunderstandings of what ToE actually says.

In reason.

Russell