A question about evolution?

I presume the original poster was not really talking about coins, specie, but species.

Artistic rendering of flesh onto the fossilized bones of an organism adds an additional dimension making it easier for the public to visualize the living creature. The use of backdrop dioramas and cast copies of skeletal recreations are an essential tool of museum displays. The Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia displays a full sized cast copy of the skeleton of a Hadrosaurus so the real skeleton is in protective storage. Most real fossils are fragile and placing them on display would destroy them.

The Academy of Natural Science has 21,000 specimens of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Their Hall of Dinosaurs displays more than 30 of their reconstructed dinosaurs and other Mesozoic reptiles. They also have tours through the prep lab to see how the fossil is handled to clean and preserve it.

http://www.ansp.org/museum/dinohall/paleo_lab.php

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/fossil-...

The fossils exist, millions of specimens in USA alone.

Most major fossil collections run into the hundreds of thousands of cataloged specimens but some like the American Museum of Natural History have 4.75 million paleontology specimens that has 1 million vertebrate specimens including 2,000 dinosaur fossils.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilha...

Even universities often have large collections. U Texas (Austin) has four million non-vertebrate specimens and one million vertebrate specimens.

http://www.geo.utexas.edu/grad/programs/paleontolo...

http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/vpl/history.html

Cornell has 2 - 3 million specimens, making it the seventh largest fossil collection in the country

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/02/9.19.02/f...

USA Museums with paleontological collections worth visiting

http://www.americasbestonline.com/Dinosaurs.html

one million) in accordance to evolutionists, people developed from apes? people are apes via definition. Linnaeus categorized us as such and he became right into a creationist. 2) there are a number of shown information in technological know-how, yet evolution is merely an theory. fake with the aid of a pretend impact of the interest concept. A actuality, in technological know-how, is a discrete component to guidance. Theories connect information and clarify them. there is not any larger class than concept. 3) A transitional variety is a fossil of an animal that's an element one species and area yet another. fake. All organisms are transitional. 4) The age of the earth is set via scientists totally in the process the radioactive relationship of fossils ? The age of the Earth became into desperate via relationship a meteor on the thought the image voltaic gadget became into each and each of an identical age. All different calculations greater healthful the age chanced on. 5) The medical technique starts off with a prediction and then seems for evidence to help that prediction? It starts off with remark. Then a speculation is formed from that remark. After the speculation is formed, scientists seem for evidence to help or falsify the speculation. 6) the thought of evolution incorporates the super Bang? fake. 7) To have faith in evolution is to have faith that life and rely got here from not something? fake.

Thanks for posting this Judy ... I've cross-posted the following (slightly edited) on that page.

Wow. That is a person who doesn't understand the difference between *evidence* and artist renderings used to explain scientific concepts to non-scientists.

* Fossils aren't artist renderings

* Stratigraphy isn't artist renderings

* Radiometric dating is not based on artist renderings

* DNA sequences aren't artist renderings

* Proteins aren't artist renderings

* Molecular biology isn't based on artist renderings

* Embryos aren't artist renderings

* The tree-like structure of living species is not an artist rendering

* Documented cases of speciation are not artist renderings

Apparently he thinks that one scientist just draws pretty pictures and the other scientists just go "ooh, evidence."

That is the kind of contempt for science and scientists for which Creationism is so well known.

Common or similar DNA sequences aren't artist renditions.

You should get the book

Campbell & Reece Biology 7th edition (or newer).

Read it. You don't have to look at the pictures if you don't want to.

Artist renditions are the MOST accurate image we have for science.