Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Gorilla Genome
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lifepsyop" data-source="post: 67366702" data-attributes="member: 346110"><p>Are you incapable of following a simple discussion? The time period is irrelevant. If you'd like to explain why the time period is of importance, then go ahead, but you won't. You can't logically explain any of your positions, that's what I've noticed about you. You just wave your hands as usual.</p><p></p><p>Again, you assert that a "mixture of traits" establishes a "transitional sequence". I show you prior "transitional sequences" based on the same criteria that completely contradict present evolutionary models. Yet if you lived in Huxley's time, you could assert with just as much confidence that those character traits were "evidence" of the amphibian-mammal transition excluding reptiles.</p><p></p><p>Evolution theory simply conforms itself to whatever data patterns are present. Whatever creatures share the most appearance of a mosaic of traits (which will inevitably emerge whether or not universal common descent is true) will be accommodated into the narrative.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now we're back to my original point. <em>There is no phylogenetic order predicted by Evolution</em>, not in any specific sense.</p><p></p><p>If Birds had been initially discovered to have more mammalian traits, then they would be placed closer to mammals phylogenetically. And that would be the Evolution story.</p><p></p><p>Now, what you <em>wish</em> you could say is that the fossils match the phylogenetic ordering. But we know that isn't true. The fossils don't have to be in order, as we see in the case of fish-tetrapods and dino-bird model.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Every</em> organism has some kind of "mixture of traits". You're just proving how equivocal and ambiguous your definition is. What a joke.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Uh huh... <em>just like nobody expects to find evidence of tetrapods in sediment predating the proposed fish-tetrapod transition </em>right? Oops.</p><p></p><p>Once again your argument has imploded. But you're either too dense to realize it, or you're playing dumb.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lifepsyop, post: 67366702, member: 346110"] Are you incapable of following a simple discussion? The time period is irrelevant. If you'd like to explain why the time period is of importance, then go ahead, but you won't. You can't logically explain any of your positions, that's what I've noticed about you. You just wave your hands as usual. Again, you assert that a "mixture of traits" establishes a "transitional sequence". I show you prior "transitional sequences" based on the same criteria that completely contradict present evolutionary models. Yet if you lived in Huxley's time, you could assert with just as much confidence that those character traits were "evidence" of the amphibian-mammal transition excluding reptiles. Evolution theory simply conforms itself to whatever data patterns are present. Whatever creatures share the most appearance of a mosaic of traits (which will inevitably emerge whether or not universal common descent is true) will be accommodated into the narrative. Now we're back to my original point. [I]There is no phylogenetic order predicted by Evolution[/I], not in any specific sense. If Birds had been initially discovered to have more mammalian traits, then they would be placed closer to mammals phylogenetically. And that would be the Evolution story. Now, what you [I]wish[/I] you could say is that the fossils match the phylogenetic ordering. But we know that isn't true. The fossils don't have to be in order, as we see in the case of fish-tetrapods and dino-bird model. [I]Every[/I] organism has some kind of "mixture of traits". You're just proving how equivocal and ambiguous your definition is. What a joke. Uh huh... [I]just like nobody expects to find evidence of tetrapods in sediment predating the proposed fish-tetrapod transition [/I]right? Oops. Once again your argument has imploded. But you're either too dense to realize it, or you're playing dumb. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Gorilla Genome
Top
Bottom