On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Quite right, because the question is unanswerable.

If you can't identify any valid theory of evolution then
what exactly is it that your are claiming is wrong?

Setting up a fake theory and then blaming the scientific
community for it is not particularly useful.

- in fact you
haven't identified what any version of evolution is and you haven't
demonstrated that _your_ version of "evolution" even exists in the
scientific community.

I disagree.

You're contradicting yourself.

But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human
beings.

Why should they be? That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any
theory that exists in the scientific community. There is _nothing_
in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous
variation in species evolution.

If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes

And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one
that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific
community.

Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but
the overlap is speculative at this point.

Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The
timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from
both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe.

But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes.

If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology
isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect
of biology.

Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution.

Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary
change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and
feed underwater.

For marine
iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that
would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of
a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks
to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of

YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes
a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be
evolution.

Even if the theory of evolution is true,

Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it.

Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? As long as you are
fighting against your fantasies, you'll have problems.

Mike