"Bruce Barnett"
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! writes:

You can't predict anything with evolution.


Sure you can.

First of all, we can predict characteristics of layers of
rocks. We can generaly predict the type of rocks found above
and below each layer. (Timewise, as the Earth can move a lot).



That predicts evolution?


We can therefore classify layers to geological ages.


Generally so.



From this we can predict the types of fossils found in rocks.
We know what sort of fossils will exist in the same layer.
And with billions of fossills, we have lots of oportunities to
test these prpedictions.


Those are observations, not predictions.



We also know that fossils of a certain category (i.e. horse like)
will have certain characteristics.


Are the legs flexible and rotatable?
Are bones fused or unfused?
How many toes does it have?
How big in the brain?
How big are the small frontal lobes?
Are the teeth low crowned?
How many incisors, canines, premolars and molars?


Now suppose we find fossils that ar 20 million years old, ad
compare them to horse-life fossiles that are 30 milllion years
old.

We can predict many of the characterists of that fossil.


You can predict that similar fossils have similar characteristics?
Don't go too far out on the limb.


We
can even predict some of the traits of a fossil of a type
never seen before.

For instance, if we have a 3-toed horse and a one-toed horse,
we expect to find a horse with the outer toes smaller as paprt
of the transition. And that is what happened.



But was it formally a bird or mudskimmer?



Occasionally we find branches of animals that seem to have not
survived. Some of the traits may be unusual, and we may not
know some of the details. Perhaps the position of the eye
socket is not where we would have expected. That's one
characteristic, but the other dozen traits are still present,
and fit into the model.

If evolution didn't occur, we would see human footsteps along
side animals that existed 100 million years ago (MYA). And
fossils from 20 MYA would be next to 50 MYA fossils.

There would be no separation of fossils by layer. But fossils
ARE separated by layer, in a predictable manner.


Different species at different times doesn't prove evolution.



There are some cases things seem confusing, but if there were
so many exceptions to the predictive model, where is the
evidence?

And it should be just one or two cases, but MILLIONS of
examples where the model fails. If evolutuon was THAT
unreliable, where is the evidence?

Yes, some claim that the Paluxy river has both human and
dinosaur tracks co-existing. But the evidence does not support
this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html



http://www.trueorigin.org/


If fossils were randomly placed, there but be billions of
exceptions. Where are they?

If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
be a hypothesis.


it is no longer considered a theory, but a fact.


By you, perhaps. The scientific community still calls it a theory.


The hypothesis has
been tested each and every time a fossil has been discovered.
And every time the model works.


I don't rule out micro-evolution but I can't share your faith.