How do we know that archeopteryx evolved from anything? How do we know that it wasn't part of God's original creation?

That's not the point, though - David K made the claim that we see no species in the fossil record that fall between current species, that all fossils fit into current categories. The archeopteryx spans the current 'bird' and 'reptile' categories pretty neatly.

We have certainly seen adaptations of species to their environments that technically amount to changes of species. That's all we'd expect to see in human lifespans, or indeed in the biologically negligible time since Darwin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Certainly, in the eyes of many evolutionists, it may have. Yet, at the same time, the 'refutation' is built upon a number of assumptions. And, yes, there are scientists who have reached different conclusions from the evolutionists, about the Second Law. On example is about the role of solar energy. Another example is the concept of treating the universe as a global system. But, the evolutionists do insist on their assumptions.

Wel, since you have brought up my name, I don't recall saying that specifically. I do recall talking about cross-breeding after the Flood, which could have resulted in 'species' that fall between current species.

The problem for evolutionists derives from the discovery of some of these other species which are supposed, according to their theory, to have only existed eons ago, but inconveniently appear to have lived quite recently, and in fact to coexist with current species!

Dave

The person who wrote this apparently does not understand how proteins are made in an organism.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/news.php?id=31
http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Pre-Sma/Protein.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/protein.htm

No-one claims that proteins formed spontaneously, or that the soup needed to make or concentrate protein

/Bevin

Sorry. Human and dinosaur fossils have not been found together according to conservative, Bible beleiveing SDA scientists working in the field.

How important is this? That may be argued.

But, we ought to be accurate in our science. That accuracy should involve acknowledging that the evicence is weak to non-existant when that is the case.

Actually, I have heard otherwise from Adventist scientists--that, in fact, they have been found together. And have seen articles on same.

This from my daughter's high school biology textbook, a 2002 edition of Biology, printed by Prentice Hall:

"Viruses share the genetic code with living things and affect living things. But most biologists do not consider viruses to be alive because viruses do not have all the characteristics of life...For example, viruses are not cells and are not able to reproduce independently..." (p. 487)

The following from a current biology textbook discussion of the origin of life shows that there is a relationship between the theory of spontaneous generation and the modern theory of evolution:

"The theory of spontaneous generation-- life from nonlife-- was disproved about 140 years ago. But if life comes only from life, then how did life on Earth first begin? This section presents the current scientific view of events on the early Earth. These hypotheses, however, are based on a relatively small amount of evidence..." (p. 423). Next follows page after page of 'maybes", "probablys," and "might haves", describing conditions and situations that no longer exist and cannot be proven. "...A stew of organic molecules is a long way from a living cell, and the leap from nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific theories of earth's early history..." (Biology, Prentice Hall, 2002, p. 425)

The above shows that the experiments disproving spontaneous generation obviously posed a problem for scientists thinking about the origin of life. If they did not pose such a problem for them, they would not have asked the question, "If life comes only from life, how then did life on Earth first begin?" Therefore, it seems clear to me that it is not true these experiments only proved that maggots don't arise spontaneously. All the scientists that I am reading admit that the experiments proved that under current conditions, life does not come from non-life. There is no question about that.