Macroevolution:

[Obliquinaut]

They're free to present it any way they like. I'm free to not accept it.

Correct. You are not required to believe in anything in science. The irony is what you don't know yet rely on daily.

It is the fervent wish that each believe the other.

NOT AT ALL! We scientists just want the science-deniers to stand out of the way of education or work in the sciences. That's all!

People are free to disbelieve anything they don't have the wherewithal to study themselves or don't have the discipline to put the work into learning. But they should not stand in the way of science moving forward.

To the extent that their beliefs are beneficial I have no problem.

So you don't find medicine and biology "beneficial"? Or you don't like the inconvenience that evolution poses to your assessment of "beneficial"?

I'm going for a check up this afternoon. I really don't care how my doctor views my anatomy; either created or evolved. It probably looks the same either way.

You can always hope! And hope springs eternal! (Hint: why do you think your doctor probably dissected various non-human animals in their biology classes? Do you think your doctor ever reads medical literature in which animal models were used to assess the safety of a drug they prescribe you?)

 

[tevans9129]

Can you specify in the biochemistry where micro-evolution has a hard break from the macro-evolution?

No. Can you provide a link that has unaltered photographs of "transitional fossils"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

 

[Non sequitur]

I give up, are you saying that all fossils are "transitional"? If not, can you provide a link as I requested of one that you consider as transitional?

I'm not saying anything.

I think it's a good idea to try and understand what it is a person is asking for, more so what they are not asking for, before offering anything. It keeps things smoother.

I was just asking what you consider a transitional fossil, that is different from what you consider a non-transitional fossil.

 

[lesliedellow]

Great, can you provide some of that evidence?

"Can anyone provide a link that has an unaltered photograph of a "transitional fossil"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be at least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?"

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

That wasn't too difficult.

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

That wasn't too difficult.

But they have all something in common maybe .. they are all human ? Guy asked for transitional fossil not fossil of evolving human but something that evolved into human .

 

[lesliedellow]

But they have all something in common maybe .. they are all human ? Guy asked for transitional fossil not fossil of evolving human but something that evolved into human .

So Kenyanthropus looks like a human skull to you does it? What good looking relatives you must have.

 

[tevans9129]

I was just asking what you consider a transitional fossil, that is different from what you consider a non-transitional fossil.

I answered no to your question and then I asked the question. I inferred that you are the expert so would think my request would be a simple one.

"can you provide a link as I requested of one that you consider as transitional?"

Either you can, or, perhaps you do not want to commit to what your idea of what a "transitional fossil" is. IMO, you have no link to what I asked for and I have certainly not been able to find one in my search.

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

So Kenyanthropus looks like a human skull to you does it? What good looking relatives you must have.

Yea that must be the missing link , now go first claim you 1M $ reward for proving evolution so we finally can call theory of evolution a law .

 

[Obliquinaut]

No

Thought so.

. Can you provide a link that has unaltered photographs of "transitional fossils"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering.

Why don't you take a paleontology class? Just curious. You are certain capable of it I assume.

There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

Kinda feels like we are starting in on a "Gish Gallop"

 

[tevans9129]

hat wasn't too difficult.

Great, images of skulls, some individual bones and that is your idea of transitional fossils"?

 

[lesliedellow]

Yea that must be the missing link , now go first claim you 1M $ reward for proving evolution so we finally can call theory of evolution a law .

I assume the $1,000,000 has been put up by a creationist, determined to believe evolution never happened, no matter how high the mountain of evidence is.

Nothing can ever be proven to a mind closed more tightly than a Bank of England vault.

 

[tevans9129]

Kinda feels like we are starting in on a "Gish Gallop"

Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to? OK, different from mine.

Is this an accurate definition of "fossil"?

fossil definition. The evidence in rock of the presence of a plant or an animal from an earlier geological period. Fossils are formed when minerals in groundwater replace materials in bones and tissue, creating a replica in stone of the original organism or of their tracks.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution has:

1. Death before the Fall; yet God calls death an "enemy."

Except that there was no Fall.

2. Mutant copy errors [strike]made in the image & likeness of God[/strike].

Evolving from previous organisms.

3. A glorified ape dying on the Cross for our redemption.

Nope, that's not part of the theory.

So you got three statements all three wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to? OK, different from mine.

Is this an accurate definition of "fossil"?

fossil definition. The evidence in rock of the presence of a plant or an animal from an earlier geological period. Fossils are formed when minerals in groundwater replace materials in bones and tissue, creating a replica in stone of the original organism or of their tracks.

Oh dear, we must be getting desperate. A skull from 5 million years ago doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of fossil.

 

[pitabread]

That is interesting, do you have a graph that shows from the very beginning? I find it interesting that evolution, cosmic or biological, never seem to start at the very beginning, why is that?

You can go here if you want more comprehensive phylogenies covering everything including the 3 primary domains of life: opentree

 

[tevans9129]

Oh dear, we must be getting desperate. A skull from 50 million years ago doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of fossil.

Hey, I admit being slow so can you explain in real simple terms how that possibly answers my question?

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?"

It seems to me that it is a deflection but then as I said, I am not all that smart.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution is the science of the fossil record.

and of comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology, biochemistry, genetics, population genetics.

Period.

The most famous case of someone closing a discussion was Sean Spicer "This was the largest inauguration crowd. Period." Was he wrong.
Sean Spicer: Trump inauguration had largest audience ever - CNN Video

Human origins gets into philosophy, which is not science.

Paleontologists, antropoligists and philosopher differ.

 

[JacksBratt]

Programmed by evolution. Their environmental niches are such that they can survive as species with relatively rigid and inflexible behaviour patterns - very economical.

We have adopted lifestyles that favour flexible, creative behaviour, with foresight and planning, which requires an understanding of how the world and society works, so we need a long period of learning and development to acquire the knowledge and understanding to function effectively in our environment.

Who programmed them? Who is this "evolution" person that did all this programming?

Why are humans.... the most intelligent of all "evolved" organisms..... the ones who have the ability to eradicate the whole planet......the ones with the very least and an absolute pathetic amount of this "evolution programmed" behavior patterns?

You don't leave home until 18 years.

Cannot walk for a year.

Cannot clean them selves after going to the washroom or even control their bladder or colon until three years.

Pretty much need our parents continually for 10 years.

Think we know everything by 18.

Sheesh.... you would have thunk we would have at least learned to fly... who would not be in a better spot if we could fly.... but no..... we cannot evolve to fly... we had to build a machine to do it for us..

Same with swimming the ocean.. that would have been nice too..

Sorry, I'll stick with the fact that God made us. Made each creature, just as He wanted it to be.. and:

Saw that it was GOOD.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to? OK, different from mine.

That isn't what you originally asked for. I will be unable to keep up with your Gish Gallop at this pace. If you keep moving your own goalposts. But here's the bigger point about the pictures you asked for and I provided: it would require you to understand more paleontology and, gasp, probably read the science as it exists.

This is the problem when non-scientists demand stuff. Yes, it would be nice if it were all as simple as it was for you back when you took Junior High Science. But sadly it does require more effort. The fact of the matter is it isn't just a nice little picture you can show from Google Images. Science is a bunch of data the requires effort to understand it. Besides, if I'd included ANYTHING that wasn't a direct photo of REAL FOSSILS you would have likely just complained that it was being "interpretted".

Is this an accurate definition of "fossil"?

fossil definition. The evidence in rock of the presence of a plant or an animal from an earlier geological period. Fossils are formed when minerals in groundwater replace materials in bones and tissue, creating a replica in stone of the original organism or of their tracks.

Usually. Not all fossils are "replaced" (ie other minerals back-filling in for the original material.)

For instance, when I was doing coal geology for my dissertation the materials that made up the preserved plant structures (down to the cell walls) were made up of carbon from the original plants. And I would assume that there are some fossil teeth (perhaps even the 100million year old sharks tooth I found in east Central Illinois back when I was taking paleontology class) still retain some of the original phosphate compounds.

But yes, indeed, many, many fossils are replacements of the original material by a subsequent mineralization. This is called permineralization.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Oh dear, we must be getting desperate. A skull from 50 million years ago doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of fossil.

No, the problem is that the poster is taking a hyper-literal narrow definition of fossils as ONLY those things which were permineralized. Yes they often are permineralized but not always. This is classic YEC behavior: science understanding based on a junior-high school level education coupled with random dictionary definitions that hardly cover real science.