robert i checked out one of your links
as you dont specify where in the link i chose the tijtaalak[or whatever you guys call that'intermediate'[that has flippers[not limbs nor a shoulderblade[the thing all legged animals have got]

so here is my SPECIFIC reply
from this link
http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

using this quote

>>..Actually it’s a red herring!

As discussed elsewhere on this site,the question of how one fills the gap between Panderichthys and Acanthostega is ultimately a side issue for the thesis that lobe-finned fish evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods.Apart from the problem of identifying Ichthyostega’s descendants, the crucial questions include:

How does one account for tetrapod trackways in beach sediments that predate even Tiktaalik by 10 million years?

How does one fill the gap between Tiktaalik, which was a fish with no legs, and an aïstopod such as Lethiscus, which within 20 million years had supposedly acquired legs and limb girdles and then lost them again, and changed from a fish to something more like a snake than any tetrapod?

That is the burden of proof that needs to be discharged. As Clack remarked in an academic paper earlier in the year, Lethiscus suggests that ‘a great deal happened in the course of tetrapod evolution that we know very little about’. This is one of the trade secrets of palaeontology to which Darwinians do not like to draw public attention.
Until the problem is solved, however, it seems reasonable to conclude that we know very little about tetrapod evolution at all and to regard Tiktaalik in much the same light as one now regards the lung-fishes, which, for all their superficial appeal as intermediates, are no longer seen as ancestral to tetrapods.>>

so much for FACTS[you give links ,thus i rebut one point that invalidates the whole link[one flaw the whole science is flawed;its not science faulsifiable]

i know you got no specific proofs

all could easilly be rebutted
if you didnt YEARN for proof of what you BELIEVE, i research things, dare to ask questions[and am not afraid of what the real truth reveals

why dont you guys question EVERYTHING[anything?]

Hi Ludwig,
I enjoyed a great deal of schadenfreude while watching Judgment Day. What a treat! What a bunch of lying nutcases were those creationists.
First, the creationists were happy that Judge Jones was appointed because he is a conservative handpicked by Bush.
Then, when they lost the case because of their own crackpot science, they threatened the judge and others with violence. Judge Jones got death threats and didn’t he say that he had to go into hiding, or something?

Ah I figure your guess about the reason why they picked the flagellum motor to illustrate irreducible complexity might be correct. Darwin wrote about the evolution of the eye but of course, couldn’t have known about the flagellum.

I thought it was hilarious when the creationist (not sure if that was Behe or someone else) was asked whether, according to his own definition of science, astrology would be included. He tried to beat around the bush but had to answer the question in the end- which was, of course, YES.

Second funny thing was when the creationists attacked the knowledge of science about the immune system, but seemed to know little or nothing about the existence of the huge big pile of thousands of articles and books that had been written about the immune system and how it evolved.

I might read Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” some time next year, if I’m in the mood for comedy.

Sad thing is that DVDs such as “Unlocking The Mystery Of Life” still go around and are being fed to the religious even after the points they use such as the flagellum motor have been debunked. Not only are they handed out in the US but here in Australia, too.
My friend was given a copy by one of the Pentecostals she knows.

RObert,
"Scientists can make predictions about what they expect to find in a certain age of rock then go dig in rocks of that age and sometimes find what they expected to find."
Exactly, and so far no one has found anything that would prove Darwin wrong

OUG, perhaps you should have checked more than one link and one part of that link. If questioning everything is something you value you need to go a bit further than spotting one piece that is clearly still under discussion, linking to an article which raises questions about that items and considering the case closed. Discussion and investigation of tiktaalik is still under way http://boardmanbio.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-evidence-that-tiktaalik-is-missing.html . If it turns out that tiktaalik is not what they think it is evolution is not invalidated, that particular find is not what it was initially thought to be. Big deal.

Find the dinosour fossil with a half eaten human in it's mouth and evolution needs a major rethink, find the human fossils in the oldest layers of rock where human fossils should not be and evolution has a problem. It does not have a problem because doubt exists over the relevance of one particular fossil which in most ways matches the predictions made for it before it's discovery.

I don't actively question every detail because I have neither the time or energy to check everything. I check the big things to the best of my ability which are crucial to the rest.

R0bert

celiva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
from
http://www.aclu.org/evolution/legal/complaint.pdf

QUOTE>>the defendant..The[EVOLUTION]Theory is not a fact.Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence...>>

[there are many GAPS ,SEE NEXT POST]as honest appraisal would confirm

The complaint was[quote>>.'(defendants’“intelligent design policy”)will compel public school science teachers to present to their students in biology class information that is inherently religious,not scientific,in nature.

The resolution thus is in clear and direct violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,which prohibits the teaching or presentation of religious ideas in public school science classes>>>

so[DUH][lol]it wasnt ABOUT evolution]but about''teaching or presentation of religious ideas'!

it wasnt about PROVING nor DISproving'CREATION'[it was ONLY about allowing the full facts to be questioned ON THE GROUNDS of'teaching religious ideas in public schools'']

roberts link
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms#The_theory_of_evolution_predicts_intermediate_forms
quote>>..where are all the intermediate forms?..they are still with us;ring species]LOL[the link[PROOF?] http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

[QUOTE}
>>..Salamander ringspecies;information;the Ensatina ring species,SEE/NEXT LINK

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l05205.html

Greenish warbler ringspecies
An article..that discusses greenish warblers..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

....>>in all cases we are talking about breeds of salimander/breeds of a warbler species{LOL][THAT FAILS the wiki description]

[QUOTe>>..Definition;If an organism'B'is intermediate in form between organisms'A'and'C,then it is said to be an intermediate form between A.and.C.

Intermediate forms are one of the key predictions of the theory of evolution,which'stipulates'/ORDERS?that species evolved through a gradual process of natural selection acting on small variations.It follows that<<if>>a kind of animal'C'is evolved from a different kind of animal'A,there will have been intermediate forms B1,B2,B3,etc between'A.and.C.>>

see that a salamander is[B1,B2 b3,etc[within the species salamander] links prove nothing]clicked http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

chose

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

[quote]>>>>General lineage":This is a sequence of similar genera or families,linking an older group to a very different?younger group...A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates forevery major structural change,...there are still gaps between each of the groups few or none of the speciation events are preserved...

..Why don't paleontologists bother to popularize the detailed lineages and species-to-species transitions?Because it is thought to be unnecessary detail.why waste valuable textbook space on such tedious detail?...>>>

why?
because that what it would take to validate it INTO a science[LOL]

AUG
Have you watched any of the David Attenborough documentaries? I just LOVE his documentaries and there’s a lovely boxed set out, “Live on Earth” I think it’s called. They're very educational and a pleasure to watch. *Poke poke*
So are RObert’s links.

I’m not really sure what your point is about the gaps in the evolution theory. Scientists are more than aware of any gaps- if they weren’t they’d have stopped digging and researching ages ago.
They don’t claim to have all the answers. We're lucky to have found fossils at all.
Everything that Darwin predicted has shown to be true, so far, even though we now can test for DNA, which could’ve disproved the lot. It didn't. Instead, it supported the evolution theory.

150+ Years of gathering evidence has made evolution very strong a theory. I know that some people don’t like to call it a ‘theory’ but a scientific theory is nothing like the every day use of the word.
The reason that the term ‘theory’ in science is used and is not called a fact is because ‘fact’ is originally a mathematical term, not a science term.
In science, a theory is build on a facts, tested and peer-viewed hypotheses, laws of physics, peer viewed papers etc- all these combined form the Theory.
It is a broader view of the observable world than facts are because facts are only part of the theory. This is crucial for creationist to understand because they claim that the evolution theory is ‘just’ a theory.

Re creationist teaching ‘ID’:
Science teachers already teach their students about any gaps- the gaps are part of the evolution theory.
Therefore it is totally unnecessary to have creationists point out to students that there are gaps. Real science teachers already are teaching them about gaps.
Both my children were taught about gaps at the local public school as part of Biology lessons.
Without the evolution theory, biology would make little sense.

A sock with a hole is still a sock.
Scientists seek to darn these holes in the theory with more research and evidence

celiva[see that as a child you were shown our ancestors EMERGED from the sea[but this is but one GAP to which science has not created a surity]

take the formentioned tikaalick[or whatever that finned thing]WITH NO WEIGHTbrearing shoulderblades,reveal your fish with shoulderblades![a very important step to stepping out of the sea[only kids could swallow that] but it gets worse

how about this un-namable'cow'creature that devolved back into the sea[an absurdity without proof[but the only proof offered is pretty pictures and links to nothing faulsifyable]

[then later we were told all will be revealed'[BUT IT NEVER WAS]those who went to 'higher'study got put into ever smaller specialities
[like our eucalyptus dude earlier]who isnt a complete botanist[nor evolutionist but an expert on eucalypt's ALONE]

evolution is accepted on our own volution,but its a delusion[check out the many gaps in an earlier link on intermediates]

EACH section has its gaps[CAUSE THEY CANT BE JOINED]but each in their own little compartmentalised SPECIALITY[box]to hold a faulse theory together [but as you again offer no facts there cant be any debate]BUT[you admit there are gaps]

im not intrested enough to proove to you the gaps refute the theory[just see where the gaps are[see the SPECULATION in between[but if you wont learn ALL the topic[or bother to explain your expertise personal knowing of it why should i]

im asking for those with proof to put it here

[what has been put up has been rebutted]i dont like rebutting nice people who dont realise they been fooled[my grandaughter swears santa is real,we are free to believe a theory[but not to lie that its science,that it is all,proved[it isnt]its a delusion for children

,but we grow up[or just remain like we all were]till we faulsifyed our own fact[did our own research[asked and sought our own answers]not just accept as a science a collection of known's[but with many more unknowns]

i know enough to know how much i dont know[but not so those decieved by evolution[who dares to ask question's be replied by these faulse gods[with a theory that has its feet stuck in clay]a not very sound foundation