Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have evidence to support that the fossil Coelacanth and the modern Coelacanth are the same species?
Since he agrees with over 99% of all biologists and paleontologists, you must think that they also ignore observational evidence. What are your credentials in biology and paleontology, such that you can make this incredible claim against the majority of scientists in those fields of study?
Wrong again. Please, repeating an error when it is pointed out to you only makes the fact that you are ignorant and afraid to learn.
i/ˈsiːləkænθ/see-lə-kanth) constitute a now rare order of fish that includes two extant species in the genus Latimeria: the West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) and the Indonesian coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis). They follow the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and tetrapods), which means they are more closely related to lungfish, reptiles and mammals than to the common ray-finned fishes. They are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean and Indonesia.[2][3] Since there are only two species of coelacanth and both are threatened, it is the most endangered order of animals in the world. The West Indian Ocean coelacanth is a critically endangered species.
I gave you a suggestion on what to do, you could not do this yourself?:
Lemaître (1927) actually estimated the 'Hubble constant from the radial velocity and distance measurements of Strömberg (1925) and Hubble.
You will see that Lemaître's estimate is empirical, not theoretical, and that it is as much based on the radial velocity and distance measurements of Strömberg and Hubble as Hubble's 1929 estimate of 525 km/s/Mpc; in other words, it is not an independent measurement.
Let's look at those.
- Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
So we observe an Asian mate with an African and produce an Afro-Asian. We observe a Husky mate with a Mastiff and produce a Chinook. Yet you ignore the observations and propose a process never once observed, that of one creature evolving into another.
- Evidence
So you call Darwin's Finches that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring before your very eyes separate species - against your own definition of species.
- Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
So you ignore the only experimental "Benchmark" evidence done with actual breeding or pollinating animals and plants in the last 200+ years.
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
- Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
So you ignore that only when you observe infraspecific taxa mate with other infraspecific taxa (Asian/African; Husky/Mastiff, etc) do you get variation within the species. Instead you classify for example these:
as separate species - when all observations say the logical conclusion is that they are merely different infraspecific taxa within the species as are these:
And that others you wrongly classified even when they were babies and adults of the same species.
- Repetition
Which showed you when mutation is involved - the same limited forms are produced over and over - see link above under experiments.
- Critical analysis
Still waiting for that from people that watch birds produce fertile offspring in front of their eyes and think its ok to call them separate species.
EDIT: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
" 2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
As stated above - all the testing with actual mutation in reproducing life falsified the theory. I see no scrutiny or logical deductions.
- Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
I see ignoring the key results - that E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations - remained E coli - and always will.
Just as Asian will remain Asian and African will remain African (EDIT: and T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil to the youngest fossil found) - and only when two infraspecific taxa mate will a new infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian) come into the record. Suddenly - with no transitory species between them and the prior generation. There is no need to propose Fairie Dust transitory species - when all observations show they do not exist and are not needed; when and if one finally accepts how life actually reproduces itself.
We do.
But it is evidence of Biblical disbelief.Loudmouth said:
When that god plays connect-the-dots with evolution and fills in their missing links by simply drawing a line over (not around, but over) them.Loudmouth said:
So much for the accuracy of evidence then.
Is that why scientists think Hitler was a Christian?
