Search results

Just passing thru.. how have you been, buddy?

Took a while????? FIVE YEARS? Good one, indeed, buddy. ;)

Hmmm.. is this the goal of creationism in general?

You mean I didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear perhaps, but I did answer your question. You must know I did, because you conveniently cut that part out of the post you quoted from me. Yes, you didn't claim anything because you have no answers. You still have no answers. Your "free...

The Dover trial? You mean the one where the conservative judge concluded that I.D. is just creationism with a new ribbon on it? BTW, Sky, its the transitionals that we don't find that are the most telling.. like between mammals and birds or between lizards and fish... ones that evolution...

Between what and what?

We know why you didn't answer my questions, even though I do my best to answer your questions. And that is because you have no answers. You claim not to be required to answer my questions (because I am not a "chief inquisitor," yet you apparently are), even though you expect me to answer your...

Did it occur to you that fishapods also evolved earlier? After all, boneless fish evolved before bony fish, yet we still have boneless fish. Jawless fish evolved before fish with jaws, yet we still have some (though not many) jawless fish. If these were fully terrestrial tetrapods, then I...

We do not know what these tetrapods looked like that left these footprints. Perhaps they were an earlier type that went extinct and left no descendents? We don't know yet. The fact is we find fishapods only during the Denovian period and before we have any actual fossils of terrestrial...

I agree with you buddy, though I don't see anything wrong with science getting us to the conclusion of common descent (that is where we differ). My buddy AVET is correct. Scientists don't deny science even if you use scare quotes for the term. You reject what conflicts with your faith. Shiny...

Please explain why we are still identifying new species every year.

I thought you said they had to be able to mate with one another if they are the same species? Looks like you are the one changing your definition "willy nilly however it suits you." Please explain why ring species are not evidence of speciation at work. It is exactly what we expect speciation to...

What are Ring Species, then? http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

Not at all, each change constituted an improvement over the previous version. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#/media/File:Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg

The horse series shows this very well: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html The chance of finding a particular species, especially one not long lasting or wide ranging is very rare.

Any of the early horses would be an example of transitional between species (such as Mesohippus), whereas Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik would be examples of transitional between classes. http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

So basically,if there were transitionals, you wouldn't recognize one.

Take it as a theoretical challenge. If such species existed, what do you expect they would look like?

We do find them. Most represent small changes between species, rather than the types representative of transitions between major groups. Do you think the latter should be more numerous than the former?

Are you a lawyer? You split hairs like a lawyer. Here is the question: "can a creationist explain to me what features a transitional fossil should/would have?" Maybe some other creationist will "stick to the OP," because you sure can't.