Top 10 Myths About Evolution

[PsychoSarah]

If life decreases entropy, then why is there only one planet
in the cosmos following the rule of nature and creating life?

-_- you do know that it is possible that life used to exist on Mars, right? Furthermore, the only planets we can study well enough to have a hope of determining if they have life on them are in our solar system. That's not exactly representative of the rest of the planets in the universe, is it?

Also, life doesn't decrease entropy. The increase of entropy in the universe is just that, the net entropy of the universe. The energy utilized by life on this planet still ends up being lost as heat in the end, it just goes through extra steps to get there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- I'll give a small list of reasons why other apes aren't on a similar evolutionary path to ourselves:
1. Most of the genes related to how humans are very intelligent compared to other apes arose after we split off from those groups.

Faith belief... based upon the belief that we share the same ancestor.

2. Most other apes don't live in the same type of environment that human ancestors did, so they do not experience selective pressures for the same traits that we did.

If we split from the same common ancestor, they lived in exactly the same environment. In fact, since they supposedly arose out of Africa, they lived alongside one another.

3. Two species cannot occupy the same ecological niche at the same time in the same environment. There used to be at least 3 other species in the genus Homo that lived alongside our own, but they couldn't compete with us. And those species were far closer to us in terms of adaptations, so what hope could chimpanzees have if they began to encroach upon our niche?

Hmm, according to evolutionists we have several different species of finches occupying the same ecological niches.....

4. The same stuff doesn't evolve twice. Even in an environment which had the selective pressures to push a population of chimps to be more humanlike, they'd never be genetically human, and differences in mutations would result in structural variations to their outwardly similar traits.

Actually according to actual mutation experiments with plants and animals, the same stuff comes about over and over and over and over and over and........

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

But hey, why worry about what actual experiments in animal and plant husbandry showed when we can just claim anything we want, right? In fact, its that recurrent variation that caused them to all but abandon mutation as a way to bring about new forms in plant and animal husbandry.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Our ability to trust and cooperate identifies why we are different from animals.

Except for meerkats. And naked mole rats. And ants. And nearly all other apes and primates... need I go on?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

2. There are too many gaps in the fossil record for evolution to be true.
In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils. Archaeopteryx, for example, is one of the earliest known fossil birds with a reptilian skeleton and feathers. There is now evidence that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik is an extinct lobe-finned fish intermediate to amphibians, there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago. Considering the exceptionally low probability that a dead plant or animal will fossilize it is remarkable we have as many fossils as we do. First the dead animal has to escape the jaws of scavengers. Then is has to be buried under the rare circumstances that will cause it to fossilize instead of decay. Then geological forces have to somehow bring the fossil back to the surface to be discovered millions of years later by the handful of paleontologists looking for them.

One might buy that excuse, but you have thousands before every claimed common ancestor. Thousands after every claimed common ancestor. But NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY COMMON ANCESTOR FOR ANY CLAIMED SPLIT ON ANY EVOLUTIONARY TREE. Its only those missing common ancestors that link your forms. So your entire theory rests upon belief in non existent creatures, one and all......

3. If evolution happened gradually over millions of years why doesn’t the fossil record show gradual change?
Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation. Species are stable over long periods of time and so they leave plenty of fossils in the strata while in their stable state. The change from one species to another, however, happens relatively quickly (on a geological time scale) in a process called punctuated equilibrium. One species can give rise to a new species when a small “founder” group breaks away and becomes isolated from the ancestral group. This new founder group, as long as it remains small and detached, may experience relatively rapid change (large populations are genetically stable). The speciational change happens so rapidly that few fossils are left to record it. But once changed into a new species, the individuals will retain their phenotype for a long time, leaving behind many well-preserved fossils. Millions of years later this process results in a fossil record that records mostly stability. The punctuation is there in between the equilibrium.

One might buy that but why pretend its evolution when all one has to do to see sudden change is mate a Husky to a Mastiff. Don't need mutation, don't need millions of years, just natural mating. Granted, you cant tell what fossil mated with what fossil from a pile of bones, but that's no excuse to ignore how we see variation occur in real life. You know, like when an Asian mates with an African.....

5. Science claims that evolution happens by random chance.
Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 2613 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. Many of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms.

One might buy that, but typo one leads to extinction of the species, not a second chance.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe that you may be unaware that entropy is a measure of disorder ---- not of order. As a seed grows into a plant, it is becoming more ordered ---roots, stems, leafs, buds, flowers and eventually new seeds. This is a highly structured, ordered process. Order is increasing which means that entropy (disorder) is decreasing. The seed cannot do this in isolation --- it requires energy in the form of heat and nutrients to do this.

And it ages, which means entropy is increasing, cells decay, which means order is decreasing, not increasing. From the moment it sprouted it began the downhill race to death. It never increased in order, but decreased from the moment of its first stirrings of life.

You think more leaves means more order, but all that information was already in the seed. The seed was more ordered than the plant which began to decrease in order the second it sprouted.

 

[JackRT]

The seed was more ordered than the plant which began to decrease in order the second it sprouted

The "order" in the seed was potential only. When that potential is activated by the input of energy the seed starts the process of becoming ordered and entropy decreases. Upon death that process is reversed and entropy increases.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Faith belief... based upon the belief that we share the same ancestor.

-_- not so much that as genetic evidence that shows humans have certain genetic differences related to intelligence not shared by any other living ape species.

If we split from the same common ancestor, they lived in exactly the same environment.

Humans have different common ancestors between ourselves and gorillas than between ourselves and chimpanzees, and there were a lot of transitional forms between that split and now. Yes, that last common ancestor lived in the same environment by virtue of being a common ancestor, but evolution didn't jump from that immediately to humans and gorillas. It is the non-shared ancestors that existed after the split that lived differently. Plus, I was describing why other apes such as modern chimps are not currently on an evolutionary path that will lead them to becoming more like humans in the future, I wasn't describing why all those evolutionary paths didn't end up with humans in modern day.

In fact, since they supposedly arose out of Africa, they lived alongside one another.

You do know that not all modern great apes are native to Africa, right? Orangutans live in Asian islands, for example.

Hmm, according to evolutionists we have several different species of finches occupying the same ecological niches.....

Citation, please. Also, same exact ecological niche in the same environment? Because organisms that don't live in the same exact area can share a niche. If they have overlapping but not identical territories, that is feasible.

Plus, while I did say two different species cannot share the same niche long term without competing for resources too much, I never said they couldn't short term.

Actually according to actual mutation experiments with plants and animals, the same stuff comes about over and over and over and over and over and........

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

1. This article is over a decade old and comes out of India, from a publisher not considered to be particularly reliable. I would suggest Nature articles, or perhaps Scientific American.
2. Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, whom is the sole author of this article (generally, not a good sign with works in biology, especially considering how much work would have to go into the study described. Either other people weren't accredited that should have been, or they refused to have their names on this), is a well known creationist backed by the Discovery Institute and Evolution News (which is also a creationist site).
3. The article mentions purely homozygous lineages of plants being experimented upon. However, his entire article depicts not one instance of him breeding plants himself. He doesn't perform a single experiment for his paper, instead trying to utilizing variations in barley cultivars. Despite bringing up mutagenic agents in the first paragraph, he uses none. Plus, the genome of barley wasn't fully sequenced until 2012; 7 years after this crap was published. So he has no basis for the normal genes to compare mutations with, even if he bothered to perform an actual experiment. Which he didn't.
4. Nearly half of the references for this article are papers that Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig himself participated in. That's quite the faux pas for a paper trying to give the illusion of being scientific.
5. There are no non-creationists that claim the law of recurrent variation is a thing.
6. All he observed was that thanks to ARTIFICIAL SELECTION BY HUMANS, certain traits kept popping up in barley cultivars. You know where humans put barley plants that don't have traits we personally find desirable? In the mulch pile. The traits are repetitive because there are specific traits humans select for in barley plants consistently, and also because people that breed barley cross lineages all the freaking time. These aren't homozygous lineages at all. Remember, most traits don't follow Mendelian genetic patterns. It is not uncommon for plants to even express entirely different traits just in response to hormonal changes.
7. Even if this guy actually had bred plants himself and utilized mutagenic substances as was stated early in the article, mutagenic substances don't produce random mutations. Most of them make A and T substitutions more likely. As a result, it is impossible to instigate all possible likely mutations artificially through use of mutagenic substances.

Seriously Justa, did you even read past the first paragraph or two of this crap? Red flags all over the place.

But hey, why worry about what actual experiments in animal and plant husbandry showed when we can just claim anything we want, right? In fact, its that recurrent variation that caused them to all but abandon mutation as a way to bring about new forms in plant and animal husbandry.....

-_- since mutations are pretty random, waiting on a trait to appear can take ages, especially if the organisms in question take years for each new generation. As a result, it is easier to just cross two individuals that already have different desirable traits to get offspring with both rather than wait for one lineage with one desirable trait to eventually experience a mutation that grants them the second desirable trait.

-_- the reason for that is because mutations AREN'T recurrent. If they were, it would make waiting for the desired mutation more viable because it'd be much more likely to occur if it already did in a different lineage of the same species.

Of course, since different mutations can end up producing practically identical effects, it is possible for a trait to arise independently multiple times, but it won't be the same on a genetic level unless humans intervene to make that outcome more likely. Even then, that's pretty difficult to achieve, and it absolutely requires restrictions on the gene pool of the population being worked with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The "order" in the seed was potential only. When that potential is activated by the input of energy the seed starts the process of becoming ordered and entropy decreases. Upon death that process is reversed and entropy increases.

The plant is dying from the moment it sprouts. It’s aging constantly. You confuse its intake of energy delaying entropy by adding energy to the atoms as avoiding entropy.

Every atom that makes up its cells is slowly loosing energy from the very first moment.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The plant is dying from the moment it sprouts. It’s aging constantly. You confuse its intake of energy delaying entropy by adding energy to the atoms as avoiding entropy.

Every atom that makes up its cells is slowly loosing energy from the very first moment.

Nah, while every organism is constantly experiencing cellular death to some extent, the organism doesn't really start to decline until the rate of cellular death outpaces cellular generation. If I recall correctly, that starts in humans around the age of 25.

Also, what about Turritopsis dohrnii, aka "the immortal jellyfish", a species which just reverts to a previous, juvenile state after a while rather than aging and dying? Technically, members of that species can live indefinitely as long as they aren't consumed, etc.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- not so much that as genetic evidence that shows humans have certain genetic differences related to intelligence not shared by any other living ape species.

Understandable since they don't share a common ancestor. All claimed shared genetic material is located in ERV sites, and viruses commonly transfer genetic material across hosts which is then incorporated into the host. It's that very thing which enables us to use them for targeted gene therapy.

Humans have different common ancestors between ourselves and gorillas than between ourselves and chimpanzees, and there were a lot of transitional forms between that split and now. Yes, that last common ancestor lived in the same environment by virtue of being a common ancestor, but evolution didn't jump from that immediately to humans and gorillas. It is the non-shared ancestors that existed after the split that lived differently. Plus, I was describing why other apes such as modern chimps are not currently on an evolutionary path that will lead them to becoming more like humans in the future, I wasn't describing why all those evolutionary paths didn't end up with humans in modern day.

See above, your confusing vertical transfer after infection as being of common descent.

You do know that not all modern great apes are native to Africa, right? Orangutans live in Asian islands, for example.

Wasn't aware you were claiming Orangutans as our closest ancestor. Just goes to show Pangaea didn't split millions of years ago, but at the Tower of Babel.

Citation, please. Also, same exact ecological niche in the same environment? Because organisms that don't live in the same exact area can share a niche. If they have overlapping but not identical territories, that is feasible.

Plus, while I did say two different species cannot share the same niche long term without competing for resources too much, I never said they couldn't short term.

According to the Grants the finches have been sharing the islands for hundreds of thousands of years.

1. This article is over a decade old and comes out of India, from a publisher not considered to be particularly reliable. I would suggest Nature articles, or perhaps Scientific American.

He sites several top geneticists and their research, I notice you ignored that...

2. Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, whom is the sole author of this article (generally, not a good sign with works in biology, especially considering how much work would have to go into the study described. Either other people weren't accredited that should have been, or they refused to have their names on this), is a well known creationist backed by the Discovery Institute and Evolution News (which is also a creationist site).

Doesnt take much work to pull together the work of other top geneticists. But I notice you ignored their conclusions.....

3. The article mentions purely homozygous lineages of plants being experimented upon. However, his entire article depicts not one instance of him breeding plants himself. He doesn't perform a single experiment for his paper, instead trying to utilizing variations in barley cultivars. Despite bringing up mutagenic agents in the first paragraph, he uses none. Plus, the genome of barley wasn't fully sequenced until 2012; 7 years after this crap was published. So he has no basis for the normal genes to compare mutations with, even if he bothered to perform an actual experiment. Which he didn't.

The article clearly gives citations to the relevant researchers who did the work. But I notice you ignored that......

4. Nearly half of the references for this article are papers that Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig himself participated in. That's quite the faux pas for a paper trying to give the illusion of being scientific.

Wait, you just protested because he didnt participate in the studies. So which is it????

5. There are no non-creationists that claim the law of recurrent variation is a thing.

Of course not. Would you admit your theory was dead that made you money? Funny how the top geneticists who's papers he cited came to that conclusion, just didnt state it as a law.

6. All he observed was that thanks to ARTIFICIAL SELECTION BY HUMANS, certain traits kept popping up in barley cultivars. You know where humans put barley plants that don't have traits we personally find desirable? In the mulch pile. The traits are repetitive because there are specific traits humans select for in barley plants consistently, and also because people that breed barley cross lineages all the freaking time. These aren't homozygous lineages at all. Remember, most traits don't follow Mendelian genetic patterns. It is not uncommon for plants to even express entirely different traits just in response to hormonal changes.

And of course you ignored the part where they stopped using mutation except in rare instances because it never gave them anything new after the series was exhausted.....

7. Even if this guy actually had bred plants himself and utilized mutagenic substances as was stated early in the article, mutagenic substances don't produce random mutations. Most of them make A and T substitutions more likely. As a result, it is impossible to instigate all possible likely mutations artificially through use of mutagenic substances.

Glad to know we can from now on ignore any result from laboratory induced mutations when you then decide to claim its valid to support your beliefs.....

-_- since mutations are pretty random, waiting on a trait to appear can take ages, especially if the organisms in question take years for each new generation. As a result, it is easier to just cross two individuals that already have different desirable traits to get offspring with both rather than wait for one lineage with one desirable trait to eventually experience a mutation that grants them the second desirable trait.

Exactly my point. I dont need evolution to produce new traits, just breed two........

-_- the reason for that is because mutations AREN'T recurrent. If they were, it would make waiting for the desired mutation more viable because it'd be much more likely to occur if it already did in a different lineage of the same species.

Of course, since different mutations can end up producing practically identical effects, it is possible for a trait to arise independently multiple times, but it won't be the same on a genetic level unless humans intervene to make that outcome more likely. Even then, that's pretty difficult to achieve, and it absolutely requires restrictions on the gene pool of the population being worked with.

Best look into that.

recurrent forms in mutation experiments - Google Search

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nah, while every organism is constantly experiencing cellular death to some extent, the organism doesn't really start to decline until the rate of cellular death outpaces cellular generation. If I recall correctly, that starts in humans around the age of 25.

Also, what about Turritopsis dohrnii, aka "the immortal jellyfish", a species which just reverts to a previous, juvenile state after a while rather than aging and dying? Technically, members of that species can live indefinitely as long as they aren't consumed, etc.

"In response to physical damage or even starvation, they take a leap back in their development process, transforming back into a polyp. In a process that looks remarkably like immortality, the born-again polyp colony eventually buds and releases medusae that are genetically identical to the injured adult. In fact, since this phenomenon was first observed in the 1990s, the species has come to be called “the immortal jellyfish.”"

Notice the "looks remarkably like" part....

In other words it clones itself. But in reality is not the same one, anymore than bacteria are who also clone themselves. You confuse making clones of onself, being the same as the same one being immortal.

If I clone you in the lab, does that make you immortal? No, it just makes clones of you, which wont really be just like you in thought, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Understandable since they don't share a common ancestor. All claimed shared genetic material is located in ERV sites, and viruses commonly transfer genetic material across hosts which is then incorporated into the host. It's that very thing which enables us to use them for targeted gene therapy.

-_- dude, you and I have different genes from each other, even excluding the X and Y chromosomes from consideration, and we are the same species. Genetic differences in and of themselves don't automatically make two different populations completely unrelated.

See above, your confusing vertical transfer after infection as being of common descent.

Vertical transfer of infection doesn't result in genes ending up in analogous locations. Try again.

Wasn't aware you were claiming Orangutans as our closest ancestor. Just goes to show Pangaea didn't split millions of years ago, but at the Tower of Babel.

I wasn't claiming orangutans as our closest living relative or ancestor. Did you ignore the fact that my initial post that you responded to was about why modern, non-human apes aren't on an evolutionary path towards becoming humans?

The orangutan comment was based on the ambiguous "they" in your post which I thought referred to ape ancestors in general, not necessarily the last common ancestor between humans and other great apes.

According to the Grants the finches have been sharing the islands for hundreds of thousands of years.

Name the species in the same niche as each other. They aren't simply in the same niche by virtue of being finches, the finches on the islands have variable diets and distribution.

He sites several top geneticists and their research, I notice you ignored that...

Yes, I noticed Dawkins was even there, with a strangely placed quote from him in the paper, which while interesting (and not supporting the paper's conclusion), was entirely irrelevant to the problems I outlined. It doesn't matter that he cited some legitimate people, the entire thing is still a garbage pile. Plus, really? Should I really take the time to Google search every name in the cited works of this poor excuse for a paper? It's not as if I based my conclusion that it was garbage on the citations, I saw what garbage it was and got curious to see what sorts of citations it had.

Doesnt take much work to pull together the work of other top geneticists. But I notice you ignored their conclusions.....

I notice you are not naming specific people here. Better not be Behe, so help me-

Anyways, if you want to point out some specific people you want me to look into, please do so. I'd rather not waste time going through every single bit.

The article clearly gives citations to the relevant researchers who did the work. But I notice you ignored that......

And I notice you are ignoring the inherent flaws I outlined, such as the fact that barley was sequenced 7 years after this paper was published in an Indian journal of ill repute. You seem to just want to focus on credentials. Which is silly. Some of the citations are super old too, like Vavilov's being from 1922. We didn't even know the structure of DNA until about 30 years later. And these aren't just citations for the introduction, no, he is actually using this crap to try to promote his conclusion further. It's a ridiculous piece of work, so sorry you don't want to admit that.

Wait, you just protested because he didnt participate in the studies. So which is it????

He didn't. In case you didn't notice, most of the citations with his name are also... Encyclopedias. Mostly stuff that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the actual data aspect of the paper. Some of them are also formatted incorrectly, so I can't even search for the actual papers he's referencing. This is basic stuff he's doing wrong. Unfortunately, I can't read German, so any papers of his in that language alone are lost on me, but it seems like a few of the citations are just the English and German versions of otherwise identical papers.

Of course not. Would you admit your theory was dead that made you money?

-_- you are assuming people couldn't make money off of disproving a theory. I'd be a rockstar if I disproved a theory as big as evolution. Plus, ever heard of moving on to other work?

Funny how the top geneticists who's papers he cited came to that conclusion, just didnt state it as a law.

Funny how you keep refraining from giving names. It makes me wonder if you are just hoping that some of these are top geneticists that aren't being quote mined. I did look up Lundqvist, since that was a significant citation in terms of the data of this paper, and their work was misrepresented, because theirs is a historical book on much, much older experiments with barley breeding that range from 1886 to 1986, with the relevant data coming from an experiments in 1956 and 1961. The specific part used in the paper is a reference to those in which the intention of the experiments WAS TO CONTROL THE DIRECTION OF THE MUTATIONS. So don't give me crap about "oh, they could only get so much variation" well gee, I wonder if that's because they were aiming for that? They wanted to control how the mutations impacted traits in order to make barley breeding easier. CAB Direct
and a paper by Lundqvist in 2014 that reaffirms this https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hrd2.00077

And of course you ignored the part where they stopped using mutation except in rare instances because it never gave them anything new after the series was exhausted.....

If you are going by Lundqvist, I've already brought up what that was all about.

Glad to know we can from now on ignore any result from laboratory induced mutations when you then decide to claim its valid to support your beliefs.....

Pfft, glad to know that you don't think the intentions behind a referenced experiment matter. I think it makes a huge difference that the Lundqvist reference is a historical book and that the data taken from it was from experiments designed to force mutations that would result in specific traits.

Exactly my point. I dont need evolution to produce new traits, just breed two........

That doesn't give new traits if the ones in question have traditional dominance/recessive patterns. It would produce an individual with both traits, ideally. You don't really get anything new by crossbreeding unless the cross results in atypical chromosome number.

Best look into that.

recurrent forms in mutation experiments - Google Search

I like how you don't actually link any in particular. It's so much more helpful than linking actual papers (sarcasm).

 

[PsychoSarah]

"In response to physical damage or even starvation, they take a leap back in their development process, transforming back into a polyp. In a process that looks remarkably like immortality, the born-again polyp colony eventually buds and releases medusae that are genetically identical to the injured adult. In fact, since this phenomenon was first observed in the 1990s, the species has come to be called “the immortal jellyfish.”"

Notice the "looks remarkably like" part....

In other words it clones itself. But in reality is not the same one, anymore than bacteria are who also clone themselves. You confuse making clones of onself, being the same as the same one being immortal.

If I clone you in the lab, does that make you immortal? No, it just makes clones of you, which wont really be just like you in thought, etc.

Hahaha, if you want to view it that way, your skin belongs to someone else because it doesn't consist of any of the skin cells you originally had. All multicellular organisms are composites of cells that go through cycles of dying off and being replaced.

Also, you quoted what it does when INJURED, when I explicitly mentioned old age alone won't kill it. I never said injury couldn't. When they replenish cells after reproducing and revert back, all the original cells do not die. So going through their normal life cycle without injury, they do not simply clone themselves.

 

[doubtingmerle]

by the fossils found in them.

So fossils cannot be found outside the proper layer
becasue
the layer is identified by the fossils it contains.

If the fossils are "mixed" then it is assumed the layers have become mixed.
This is how people can claim they are never in the wrong layer.

Wrong.

You were told how rocks are dated: "by their mineralogy. And by their sedimentology. And by their environment of deposition. And by their internal structures. And by their horizontal and vertical variation. And by their boundaries. And by the strata adjacent to them."

if you think your answer is better, please site a source.

 

[JackRT]

Every atom that makes up its cells is slowly loosing energy from the very first moment.

From the very first moment that conditions activate the seed, it is growing, cells are splitting and differentiating all from the addition of energy from outside. Entropy decreases until there comes a point where more cells are dying than being added. At that point entropy starts to increase again. This is true of everything alive, us included. At this point in my life I am past the tipping point. My entropy is increasing, all I can do is slow it down a bit. Hence the pacemaker that was installed less than a month ago.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This has been fun. Sorry if I missed anything.

PS I'm not a 7-day or Young Earth Creationist.
I just don't like Evo-History writers
creating bad science-fiction.

You are not this and are not that. Ok, then what are you? A progressive creationist?

 

[AV1611VET]

2. There are too many gaps in the fossil record for evolution to be true.
In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils.

With such a large gap, there's bound to be something found.

Oh, look here ... I found a railroad tie here in Santa Fe!

I guess there was a railroad that ran from Boston to Los Angeles!

Have you seen my Daisy Chain challenge?

 

[Ophiolite]

Other animals can trust and cooperate.

Arguably bonobos are better at it than we are. They certainly seem to have a lot more fun!

 

[doubtingmerle]

With such a large gap, there's bound to be something found.

Oh, look here ... I found a railroad tie here in Santa Fe!

I guess there was a railroad that ran from Boston to Los Angeles!

Have you seen my Daisy Chain challenge?

Oh, look here ... I found another railroad tie in las Vegas and another near Kansas city and track here near Boston and a series of abandoned stations between them and other ties and records of an ancient economy around the railroad.

I guess there was a railroad that ran from Boston to Los Angeles!

Have you seen a natural history museum?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, look here ... I found another railroad tie in las Vegas and another near Kansas city and track here near Boston and a series of abandoned stations between them and other ties and records of an ancient economy around the railroad.

I guess there was a railroad that ran from Boston to Los Angeles!

Have you seen a natural history museum?

Except that's a conclusion you jump too, as in reality each track was a local route that you mistakenly connected in your mind as one single route......

And yes I have. I have also seen the lineage of dogs and know that variation occurs from mating. In fact, in real life that's the only way you have ever seen it occur. That what is mistaken as transitional is in reality simply when two creatures mated and produced offspring that looked different. Like when a Husky mated with a Mastiff and produced the Chinook. That they then mistakenly call them separate species instead of subspecies simply to support their system of beliefs. That it only took vasts amount of time, because unlike dogs which man brought together, in nature it took geological changes, famines, etc to bring different subspecies together so their ranges overlapped. So that what we see in dogs is what occurred in reality, and you cant find your missing common ancestor that split because it never existed, because nothing evolved into nothing, just as the Husky nor Mastiff never evolved into the Chinook. Nor does the Asian or African evolve into the Afro-Asian. Husky stays Husky, Mastiff stays Mastiff and the Chinook suddenly appears in the record. Asian stays Asian, African stays African and the Afro-Asian suddenly appears in the record. And hence every creature for which a fossil has been found has stayed that exact same creature from the oldest to the youngest found for that creature, and the next subspecies suddenly appeared in the record after mating occurred when forced into overlapping ranges by natural geological changes... One needs no illussionary missing common ancestors. One just needs to accept the reality of how we observe new forms to appear - through mating of two subspecies.