Thanatos34 said:
jboking said:
Daveman said:
Sorry but there was plenty of proof of evolution before they found this.
jboking said:
Macro evolution(evolution between above the level so species) and Creationism are in the same boat when it comes to teaching them for one serious reason. Neither is provable or testable.
Archaeopterix (can't remember spelling) was much more significant as it showed where reptiles evolved to birds (I presume that is what you mean by macro evolution), much better than one mammal turning to another mammal.
The thing is that evolution is really so simple there really isn't any need to proove it further. We can see it happening in bacteria and other micro-organisms. Anybody who denies it is happening might as well deny gravity exists, I mean it's equally obvious.
Macro Evolution is said to occur over eons, it is not provable. Archeopteryx is not proof of macro evolution, which is where most of the Creationism vs. Evolution arguments are set. No one is stupid enough to say that Micro Evolution doesn't occur becasue it is provable and observable. If you don't know the terms then I'm sure Wikipedia can help you out.
Err, let's not use bad examples to convince creationists, eh? Archaeopteryx, or however the hell you spell that bloody thing, was as much of a fraud as Nebraska Man.
Fraud? Why? It was claimed to be but they proved that wrong. From wikipedia:
"Authenticity
Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged.[44][45][46][47] Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum (Natural History). Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement, without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference. They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab. These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other. They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather, when this is visibly not the case. In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers, which is untrue; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers. Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.
Charig et al.. pointed to the presence of hairline cracks in the slabs running through both rock and fossil impressions, and mineral growth over the slabs that had occurred before discovery and preparation, as evidence that the feathers were original. Spetner et al.. then attempted to show that the cracks would have naturally propagated through their postulated cement layer, but neglected to account for the fact that the cracks were old and had been filled with calcite, and thus were not able to propagate. They also attempted to show the presence of cement on the London specimen through X-ray spectroscopy, and did find something that was not rock. However, it was not cement, either, and is most probably from a fragment of silicone rubber left behind when molds were made of the specimen. Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by paleontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then."
Search it if you don't believe me.
