proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Astrophile]

Then why does he say, "not connected by their ancestors by a series of intermediates?"

This doesn't make sense. From the meaning of the word 'ancestor' any living thing must be connected with its ancestors by a series of intermediates. For example, I am connected with my 20-greats-grandparents via my parents, my grandparents, my great-grandparents ... my 17-greats-grandparents, my 18-greats-grandparents, and my 19-greats-grandparents. Each of them is an intermediate in the series.

What was tiktaalik before it was taktaalik? Don't forget to include the evidence to support what you have to guess about.

Ah, yes. Tiktaalik bridges the gap between fish and amphibians, so now we have two gaps, one between true fish and Tiktaalik, and the other between Tiktaalik and amphibians. Presumably when those gaps are bridged, there will be four gaps, and so on.

In fact there were various earlier members of the series, for example Osteolepis, Panderichthys, Kenichthys and Tungsenia - see Tetrapodomorpha - Wikipedia and Fish to Amphibian Transition .

Finding fossil is not evidence of evolution. Not only must you link them together, you need to start with evolution's unprovable guess as to what the first life form was, how did it originate, and what did it evolve into?

This is like saying that one can't know anything about chemistry without knowing where the elements came from, or that one can't use meteorology to predict the weather without knowing how the Earth got its atmosphere. One can certainly say that horses evolved from Eohippus or something very like it, and that we evolved from the australopithecines and the ardipithecines, without needing to know what the first life form, or even the first mammal, was.

I have not said or suggested Mayr doubted evolution. In fact he also said, "the fossils are the most convincing evidence for the occurrence of evolution."

It is amusing that what is "woefully inadequate" is the best evidence for evolution. That seems to be an oxy-moron.

So how do you explain the fossil record? The fossils really exist, they are the remains of animals and plants that were once alive and that had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., and the fossils found in ancient rocks (those lower in the stratigraphic sequence) are more different from modern life-forms than the fossils found in younger rocks (those higher in the stratigraphic sequence). How do you explain these facts?

 

[rjs330]

Yet whenever I've asked you or any other creationist to substantiate such claims, you've come up short if not outright made excuses to avoid the subject altogether.

In fact, about the only thing I've gleaned from creationists on this forum is that life, if specially created, has the appearance of evolution.

Actually no it doesn't. It has the appearance of common design. The evolution is an assumption because we have never seen evolution happen as is claimed.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually no it doesn't. It has the appearance of common design. The evolution is an assumption because we have never seen evolution happen as is claimed.

Have you seen humans created?

 

[2tim_215]

I see it as... real love will tell the truth in the hopes of saving, rather than remaining silent in the hopes of being liked.

Aman:>>Tell us WHEN Humans had dominion/rule over Angels as Gen 1:28 states.

**** Gen 1:28 doesn't say anything regarding man having dominion over angels.
Genesis 1:28(KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

He gave man dominion over every living thing "residing" on earth. Angels do not reside on earth, they reside in heaven. What Bible are you using?

Scripture doesn't say "residing". I use the KJV which clearly shows that Angels move upon the Earth and that Humans will have dominion over them, as I posted.
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels?

Quite a stretch to claim that because angels can "frequent" the earth from time to time that it's currently their residence. Do you disagree that angels reside in heaven unlike men (today and always have to the best of our knowledge)? And that humans, beasts and plants reside on this earth? Does "do have" and "will have" have the same meaning? Yes, the Bible does say that man will eventually have dominion over angels but that has yet to come. You seem to have said that Angels are currently under man's dominion which they are not. Hebrews tells us:
Hebrews 2:5-9(KJV) For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Who is the writer of Hebrews referring to in verse 7, man or Jesus or both? Even when Jesus was on the earth in guise of a man, He too was slightly lower (to lessen in rank or influence) than angels, but not anymore as He sits at the right hand of God at this moment. Also, in the Old Testament Psalms:
Psalms 8:1-9(KJV) O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
visitest - H6485 פָּקַד pâqad paw-kad'
A primitive root; to visit (with friendly or hostile intent); by analogy to oversee, muster, charge, care for, miss, deposit, etc.:—appoint, X at all, avenge, bestow, (appoint to have the, give a) charge, commit, count, deliver to keep, be empty, enjoin, go see, hurt, do judgment, lack, lay up look, make X by any means, miss, number, officer, (make) overseer have (the) oversight, punish, reckon, (call to) remember (-brance), set (over), sum, X surely, visit, want.
It's not exactly clear whether the writer is referring to both man and Jesus. However, it is clear that he's referring to Jesus (who at one time was "lower" than angels but certainly is not today (He's above everyone and everything) but if Jesus was "lower" during His time on earth in the form of a human being, I'm sure that every other human being before and since certainly and are waiting for it to change in the future when we get our glorified bodies.
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
lower - H2637 חָסֵר châsêr khaw-sare'
A primitive root; to lack; by implication to fail, want, lessen:—be abated, bereave, decrease, (cause to) fail, (have) lack, make lower, want.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
Could be both Jesus and man, but definitely Jesus. You may be thinking that the above includes angels, I don't think so, it's just the things of the earth (although angels subject to Jesus but not to us). Angels may serve us, but are not subject to for now.
7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Aman:>>Tell us WHEN ALL animals were vegetarians as Gen 1:30 states.

Before the flood (which is what is being stated in this verse although the word "flood" isn't being mentioned, but it's clear that it's before the flood takes place.

False, since Isaiah 11 shows that Lions and Bears will become Vegetarians AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign for a thousand years. Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Is it not possible (according to the scriptures) that at one time (pre-flood when first created) that animals were vegetarians and although not today (for the most part) they will return to that state (as will humans as well) when Jesus kingdom comes on this earth?

Aman:>>Tell us WHEN God looked upon His creation and said it was very good. Gen 1:31 You cannot explain since those verses are not fulfilled until AFTER Jesus returns. Amen?

False equivalence. It was good when He first did which was in fact fulfilled. Due to the fall of man, much of that was undone but all will be eventually restored the way God had intended when the Lord returns to put down all that is evil.

God sees the end from the beginning. Isa 46:10 Can you honestly tell us that God says it is very good, when more than 20k babies will die in the next 24 hours of hunger? God will NOT say, it is very good until it is perfect. He wouldn't be God if He said such a thing until it was brought to perfection, as He will, at the end of the present 6th Creative Day. Amen?

It was good, until men decided to start killing babies. It was perfect, until the fall took place which will someday be restored to the way that God meant it to be when He performed original creation.

 

[David_M]

If you think flippers are legs, you need to make an apointment witha good optician.

Otters don't have flippers, they have LEGS with clawed, five toed feet. The feet have varying amounts of webbing but are not fins.

of course they do in the environment they were designed for. They could not survive on land. In fact they do not go on land for food. In fact if they did. land predators would make the extinct.

Otters do feed on land as well as in the water, you really don't know what an otter is do you?

Note the paws.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's the fault of the false ToE which mistakenly teaches that Humans descended from the common ancestor of apes. Humans were made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Every other living creature was made from WATER on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Adam is the common ancestor of ALL Humans since only God and Humans Gen 3:22 have the highest intelligence of any other living creature. Today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have the superior intelligence of God AND the genetics of prehistoric people (sons of God). Gen 6:4

That's odd. Because Habilis was here and died out a million years before humans. How can you possibly claim he was created 2 days after humans?

You just ignoring the evidence?

 

[David_M]

A theory that eliminates intermediate fossils, is not a gradual process.. It eliminates gradualism as proof of evolution. Did Gould say it was a gradual process?

It does not eliminate intermediate fossils, it explains why intermediates between species are rare compared to intermediates between higher level groups.

Gradualism is not a proof of evolution its a description of the overall average rate at which evolution occurs.

 

[pitabread]

Actually no it doesn't. It has the appearance of common design.

As I already said, you can't and won't substantiate this. At this point I have no idea what "appearance of common design" is supposed to mean beyond a bumper sticker slogan.

The evolution is an assumption because we have never seen evolution happen as is claimed.

This has already been explained to you many times (and is clearly falling on deaf ears since you don't understand it), but the process of evolution that we observe today is the same process that would have occurred in the past. The only difference is the cumulative effects over a longer period of time.

Conversely, we have zero mechanisms by which fully formed species instantly pop out of thin air which is what you claim. If you can point me to such an example, I'd love to see it. But you don't and you won't.

Thus far, you got nothing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Thanks for confirming that there is NO evidence of implanting the superior intelligence, which ONLY God and Adam have, Gen 3:22 into any other creature.

That's odd, because brain size has been shown to have increased incrementally in hominids over several million years. If suddenly--KABOOM--there were new creatures with bigger brains, why does the fossil record not confirm your claim?

 

[David_M]

Paws are not hands. They are not holding hands, they are touching paws. Hands can grasp, paws can't

Grasping is not Holding. Pedantry can work both ways.

But in any case, paws are not flippers not matter how you try and stretch the definition. And that admission proves you were wrong. Paws are not flippers and you have agreed that otters have paws. Has legs, feeds in the sea, not extinct.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They are only incompatible for one reason--some of them can no longer mate and produce kids. Becoming sterile does not make a new species. I also understand that all of them did not become sterile.

Uh no, creatures at other ends of a ring species are not sterile. Those at each end of the ring can breed with members on their end, but not with members on the other end. So if you agree that all the members of a ring species began from one species, then, if the members in the middle disappear, you are left with two species. That is the mechanism by which one species can begin, and end up with two species, and we are seeing that in progress.

If the breeds are different, they will have a different variety of dog because bull dogs and collies are both dogs.

Uh when did wild poodles roam the earth? Hint--it never happened. Rather, all modern dogs descended from a breed of wild dogs. And that involved a lot of differences as time went on.

So no, it is not poodles all the way back to Adam.

 

[David_M]

They are only incompatible for one reason--some of them can no longer mate and produce kids. Becoming sterile does not make a new species. I also understand that all of them did not become sterile.

Wrong, its ALL not SOME and its with the other population at the other end of the ring. They can reproduce with their own population and the neighbouring ones so they are not sterile at all.

They cannot breed with members of the other population but can with members of their own, that (as you have admitted) is part of the definition of different species.

 

[David_M]

and again here is a fossil that predate most of those fossils:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

a fossil in the wrong place again. again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. but in this case you just claiming for missing fossils that we dont find yet. the problem is that in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. as for the rest of your claims i will response to you later.

Not in the wrong place, in exactly the right place to fill a gap and answer an important question of how fast certain traits evolved.

The find is further confirmation of how whales evolved.

 

[AV1611VET]

The find is further confirmation of how whales evolved.

Whales came before land animals.

 

[pitabread]

Whales came before land animals.

Except they didn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except they didn't.

Is that because you think whales are mammals?

If so, why did Jonah call it a "whale" and Jesus call it a "fish"?

Does God know something Linnaeusatan didn't?

 

[doubtingmerle]

and again here is a fossil that predate most of those fossils:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

a fossil in the wrong place again. again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. but in this case you just claiming for missing fossils that we dont find yet. the problem is that in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. as for the rest of your claims i will response to you later.

As others have explained to you, the question is only one of the timing. Did it take 15 million years for whales to evolve, as per the chart I showed, or 4 million years per the new finding? The new find consists only of a jawbone, and there are questions about it. But even if whales did evolve over 4 million years as this find seems to indicate, whales most likely went through a path similar to the creatures I showed. Those intermediates could have lived later than the common whale ancestors that looked like them, but that could be because they had a niche where they lived on for millions of years after their earlier ancestors.

Humans and gorillas split in two lines about 10 million years ago, and as far as we can tell, the common ancestor looked much more like a gorilla than a human. But even though we don't have that common ancestor, we still have gorillas that look much like him. Likewise, whales may have surpassed the Remingtonocetidae stage millions of years before the Reming fossils we now have, but Reming still gives clues to the path that whale evolution took.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is that because you think whales are mammals?

If so, why did Jonah call it a "whale" and Jesus call it a "fish"?

By no means is a whale a fish. If Jesus called a whale a fish, then he was mistaken.

 

[pitabread]

Is that because you think whales are mammals?

No, it's because science.

 

[AV1611VET]

By no means is a whale a fish.

Actually I got it backward.

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.