Changes

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

 

: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process.  Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process.  Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:Regarding intermediate fossils...  This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument.  Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another.  People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils.  Hence why I call it a cop out argument.  There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.

:Regarding intermediate fossils...  This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument.  Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another.  People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils.  Hence why I call it a cop out argument.  There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.

:Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==