1. Why do Creationists erroneously think that fossils are the only evidence we have for evolution?
We don’t. It’s just that it should be the easiest ‘connect-the-dots’ verification, and with all the effort and concentration evolutionists have put into that area of their search, any reasonably thinking person would think their claims would be substantiated by now.
And they are, as you have been shown with the Tiktaalik example and how it was found by prediction. Your rebuttal was basically "they got lucky" or something of the sort.
2. How about we try two experiments involving fossils. The first one is a chronological lineup of hominid fossil skulls with a chimpanzee skull in the upper left for reference. Please tell me where you draw the line between "ape" and "human" and why you do so at that point.
You can’t prove (I know you try to avoid this word because it’s not elastic enough) the connection, but you want me to do it, in effect picking the transformation point for you. Sorry, that’s your problem... Creationists know better.
Nice dodge.
3. For the second one I'd like for you to tell me if it's "ape" or "human" and why you conclude as you do.
View attachment 240478
View attachment 240479
Same answer as for #2.
You can't do it, can you? Just like all the creationists that were given this test couldn't. It was complately funny to see how there was basically a 50/50 split in opinions if it concerned a "human" or an "ape" concerning the
transitional fossil skulls, while they all pretty much agreed on the oldest skull being an "ape" and the youngest one being a "human".
Which, incidently, is exactly within the expectation of evolution theory, where species
gradually evolve over time.
No, that goes for all scientific theories, in any area/field.
3. No single fossil or any other piece of evidence is "the one". Scientific theories are built on bodies of evidence, not a single example.
There are corner stones for any solid building.
Sure. In evolution, those would be the various observations of all the core mechanisms. But what he's talking about, is the supporting evidence, the data. There is no sinlge "the one" piece of evidence. The convincing part of the data is the overwhelming amount of it, from various different independent lines of evidence, with no data at all to contradict any of it.
2. Tiktaalik was the fossil version of summer blockbuster. Neil Shubin wrote a Best Selling book after the find and in 2014 made a three part documentary for PBS. To act as if this discovery was not a big deal betrays an ignorance of how it was received.
I’m sure you can point to a reference showing complete agreement with his interpretation of the find within the scientific community then?
How could "a single reference point" reflect the opinions of thousands of scientists? :-S
But yes, the Tiktaalik find is a success story for evolution theory and an important transitional fossil showing the transition from sea life to land animals. This is accepted by consensus, yes.
3. We're making incredible fossil discoveries every year. One of most recent to finally be a blockbuster for the science literate was Little Foot who was unveiled to the public in 2017 after 20 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42250530
Back to fossils again? Even 'your' first question sort of dismissed them as a principal source of reliable evidence. Why should we find it exciting news?
*** Just so you know ahead of time, I'm going to ignore any further barrage of questioning such as this.*** Oh, and have some more fish.
Creationists are the ones that keep asking for all them supposedly "missing" transitional fossils. So we keep showing them to demonstrate that they aren't "missing" at all.
But off course, it doesn't really matter... Just look at the Tiktaalik example which was presented in much detail in various threads here the past 2 weeks. I don't think a single creationist who keeps asking for example of transitionals actually acknowledged this fossil. We got a whole lot of rather absurd excuses though.