[b said:Quote[/b] ]The evidence of intermediate life forms is shown not by geological columns, but rather through the analysis of the forms that come immediately prior to, and subsequent to the fossil in question.
I don't know what you're talking about[b said:Quote[/b] ]hey alpha, you havent gone into muct detail (akak rant) about sexual selection yet. it would further back up our argument for evolution
everywhere. fossils, killfish, the gulls, etc.[b said:Quote[/b] ]So where's our solid evidence about intermediate life forms?
just wondering but what organisms are found in EVERY layer?[b said:Quote[/b] ]many organisms are consistently found in every layer, from top to bottom. Secondly, there are many microscopic organisms that seem to have gone extinct, but haven't reevolved. The majority of microorganisms are still around today.
not to mention that certain organisms (Ie. jellyfish) are almost or totally impossible to fossilize because of their body is too soft, etc or because of where and how they live. (for example- just my own educated guess- if there's a population of whatevers that lives on top of a volcano they wouldn't fossilize because 1. a volcano would be too high 2. the volcano may erupt and burn the fossils... or maybe the organisms live in the middle of the ocean. When they die they drift down, down, down, and for them to get to be burried before other things eat it would be extremely rare.... or if they live in a subduction zone then the fossils would go deeper and deeper and then melt... etc)[b said:Quote[/b] ]The reason there seem to be gaps is twofold:
remember that many times (ie. homo erectus? or was it another homo? lol.. anyway) people don't even know if to say they're humans or other apes, mammals or reptiles, etc...[b said:Quote[/b] ]So where's our solid evidence about intermediate life forms?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]The entirety of life's progressions will never be found in the fossil record as a result, but a good framework certainly exists.
no, there's not a good framework of fossils. there's a GREAT framework.[b said:Quote[/b] ]There certainly isn't a "good framework" for anything. All we've got are scattered fossils, and in the lower levels we find ones that don't exist anymore. As for "primitive life forms" not being able to escape water, most land dwelling ones could easily find a home in an larger animal habitats in an ark.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]just wondering but what organisms are found in EVERY layer?
you're naming GROUPS of animals. They are NOT the same species that are today (most of them anyway)[b said:Quote[/b] ]Oh, lots - protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates are all found in the lower levels much like they do in the top levels. The lower levels contain no intermediates between these groups, either. I'm not saying giant cockroaches didn't exist. They just didn't survive. What do you think a cockroach would be more likely to do - develop the ability to deal with less oxygen, or to decrease in size?
Sorry luis but you're wrong on this one. The experiment was called 21 Grams and it was done by Dr. Duncan MacDougall. It was even published.[b said:Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Jan. 04 2005,9:03)]It is not getting equal focus, cause we are not talking about Hindus.... we are talking about...err against Christains. The Hindu belief of how the earth came into being could very well be correct, but as it is religious along with Cristianity and all the othere. It is wrong cause it states there is a god... hmmm how sad. I'm so glad I have a god. I like knowing that I will go somewhere(well that's what I believe) when I die, I don't want to merely cease to exist. Evolution "proves" that right? We have no soul but we do lose weight the moment we die... I heard many examples done(by the way dogs don't lose weight when they die interesting "fact" aint it).
[b said:Quote[/b] ]
People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years. But it was only as recently as 1907, that a certain Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed "arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales" that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around 5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such delicate scales, he decided to "select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted".
He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients, that "at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce."
He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs, which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise.
But before his article appeared in American Medicine, the New York Times on the 11th March, 1907 had already published a story on him, entitled Soul Has Weight, Physician Thinks, on page 5. His reputation was now assured, having been published in both a medical journal and The New York Times (a Journal Of Record).
As a result, the "fact" that the soul weighed three-quarters of an ounce (roughly 21 grams) made its way into the common knowledge, and has stayed there ever since.