Okay, I just want to explain my objections to your evidence on what seems, to me, to be logical grounds. Try to understand where I'm coming from. I'm a very literal person with a strong background in math and science (engineering, though I'm also preparing to go into law) who likes to have things cut and dry. It has to make sense before I will accept it. These are a few of the thoughts that I have on the evidence that you've mentioned:
argexpat said:
Fact: Snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones and vestigial legs.
This one's a tough one, but the Bible talks about God causing the serpent to have to crawl on his belly (after causing Adam and Eve to sin), implying that He would have then altered the serpent at that point. Which would be allowable to one who holds the view of intelligent design.
Are there stages of snakes with very short legs before they dropped to just vestigial legs?
Fact: Human embryos exhibit gill slits and tails.
As do tadpoles, though they go away after they become frogs, it's part of a developmental process of the individual being, not a genetic trait.
This is true of all the mammels that I know of, that both the males and females have nipples.
Fact: Successive generations of viruses develop resistance to drugs over time.
Humans develop resistance to disease (or drugs) over time, yet, we are still humans. Thousands of years of adaptation to drugs and disease, and we are the same species that existed thousands of years ago.
Fact: A whale's "fins" are modified legs, and exhibit the same basic bone structure as the human hand.
As humans, whales are mammals, and the bone structure is one of the things that is common among most mammals, along with live birth, nursing their young, and nipples on both the males and females
.
Fact: Women menstrate according to the lunar cycle.
Dogs menstruate annually, and rats menstruate every 5 days, on average. What does all that prove?
Fact: Bird feathers are modified scales.
Yet, they are hollow, are shaped differently, and serve a very different purpose. Are they based on scales because of the way that they are attached to the skin? That's the only similarity that I see.
Fact: plants and animals adapt to their environment.
Yes, it's a matter of survival, but they are born with all the physical capabilities to adapt. A dog, for example, will grow a particularly thick coat of fur to cope with a cold winter, while they will shed it for the hotter "dog days" of summer.
Fact: There are flightless birds.
And flying fish, yet the flightless birds are still birds, and the flying fish are still fish. Are you using these as transitional species? Why is it that these still exist, then, while other transitional species apparently only existed between the critters in the fossil record.
Fact: There are mammals that swim in the ocean and sea creatures that crawl on land.
But, they share the characteristics of mammals and sea creatures, respectively. Whales still have to have air to breath (they don't breath through gills), while the sea creatures still have to have air from water to breath.
Fact: Frogs and toads begin life as tad poles swimming in water, then grow legs and hop around on land.
Again, these are developmental stages, not evolutionary stages.
Fact: The fossil record shows an evolution of species from simpler common creatures to more complex, specialized and varied creatures over time.
You refer here to simpler creatures in earlier strata of fossils, and more complex organisms in more recent. Yet, there are still lacking those stages in between. Why are there not adult humans who had gills, or bird who had regular scales, or cows who are half whale? These are the types of fossils that I would expect if we truly evolved over time, that I have not seen.
Can you see where I'm coming from, or are you just convinced that I'm a religious bigot, who arbitratily denies evolution?