Just a couple of notes, Russell2
And anyone who wants to discuss any one of these bits of evidence or what transitional really means in biology, we have this current thread:
Transitions, telling truth from lies. Note that RussT has not said anything about the evidence of transitional fossils on this thread.
It’s true, evolution takes a long time, it’s probably much faster than Darwin envisaged in the right conditions but it’s certainly not a fast process. I very much doubt that any ‘evolutionist’ would suggest that it is an excessive amount of time far less infinite. The observed facts of evolution in action in the experiments I have documented above and in wild observations show that the earth is easily old enough to account for the evolution that has apparently occurred here.
Actually to see evolution occur, all one needs to do is observe the world around you. Take a little more time and you can observe speciation, the beginning of two branches of organisms related by a common ancestor population.
This does not take long to observe.
What takes a significant amount of time is to explain the evolution that has already occurred and that is documented in the fossil record. It is almost tautological that you need to include a long time to explain the results of any process that has in fact occurred over a long period of time, and the fact is that evolution has been happening for over 3.5 billion years on earth, so to explain the result one must necessarily includelong periods of evolution.
The curious thing though, is that
less time is necessary to explain the end result of evolution over all that time than has occurred: if evolution were a directed process then there would have been no false starts.
LOL Carl Baugh is just brilliant, I love his stuff. I actually think he believes the stuff he writes which is sad but it’s still very funny. Did you know that the YEC website AnswersInGenesis lists Carl’s dino tracks arguments on their “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use” page in the “Which arguments should definitely not be used” section.
(see the Director’s doctoral dissertation).
Oh yes, read it, he wrote it for the unaccredited diploma mill that gave him is PHd and it’s about up to the standard you’d expect. Have a read, the link was on his website last time I looked for it.
Did you know that he edited his "dissertation" after "graduation"? Know any real Ph.D. that has done that?
I've
been to Paluxy, and I've seen the footprints, I've put my feet in them, and not one of them comes close to a real human footprint.
![[Linked Image]](http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/FirstwithMate.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://razd.evcforum.net/Pictures/CvE/SecondTrackCleaned.JPG)
The first is too long and narrow, the stride is about 3ft forward and 5 feet to the side, and those feet are over 20" long and less than 4" wide. The second is a sauropod, both were about the same depth in the solidified sediment, so the weight of both track makers were way more than any human has ever weighed, even if one were the right shape.
I feel a little déjà-moo in the air.
And certainly some preja-moo but probably not presque-moo (not yet anyway: there's always a catch). When it comes to creationist evidence it is more a matter of jamais-moo.
Enjoy.
