Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

GodsGrace101 said:

You want I should become a scientist?
LOL

Click to expand...

No, just try to learn if you want to oppose something.

GodsGrace101 said:

I don't oppose evolution...
I've said that I don't understand how it could be possible. If it's discovered next week that we come from the primordial soup,,,I won't faint. I just don't see how it could be possible.

If this is the same as opposing it...so be it. But I don't think so.

Click to expand...

So why are you arguing against it here?

Speedwell said:

So why are you arguing against it here?

Click to expand...

You're right.
Let me go make some tiramisu'.

GodsGrace101 said:

If you don't think that scientist are abandoning this idea and moving on to others, there's no reason why it should be proven.

YOU believe EVERY scientist in the world agrees with evolution?
Is water we?
Do I have to prove it?

I can post names...what difference will it make?
I'm getting a little tired of proving statements that everyone should know are true...especially intelligent persons.

Click to expand...

Wow, way to miss the point.

You make an outlandish claim and then refuse to back it up. So very convincing...

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, it is. It also publishes articles that are opinion pieces. Do you see an abstract? That is a clue that it is not peer reviewed. If you don't even know the general form of a peer reviewed article why are you even arguing here? You should be learning instead.

Click to expand...

isnt an opinion can also be peer reviewed? isnt an article also a kind of an opintion?

HitchSlap said:

The article you posted was not a study nor was it peer reviewed.

Click to expand...

it was published in that jornal and that journal is indeed peer reviewed.

xianghua said:

isnt an opinion can also be peer reviewed? isnt an article also a kind of an opintion?

Click to expand...

Nope, opinion pieces do not undergo peer review. Peer review applies to formal articles and that one clearly was not.

xianghua said:

it was published in that jornal and that journal is indeed peer reviewed.

Click to expand...

But it was an opinion piece. Please learn to tell the difference. In a peer reviewed article one must include observations and detailed descriptions of how those observations were attained. Do you see that in the article that you linked?

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, opinion pieces do not undergo peer review.

Click to expand...

lets say that its true. what about these other 2 articles?:

Genetic Analysis Of Coordinate Flagellar And Type Iii Regulatory Circuits In Pathogenic Bacteria

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

xianghua said:

lets say that its true. what about these other 2 articles?:

Genetic Analysis Of Coordinate Flagellar And Type Iii Regulatory Circuits In Pathogenic Bacteria

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Click to expand...

Let me see, the first does not appear to be from a well respected peer reviewed journal. It was identified as a predatory publisher:

Wessex Institute of Technology - Wikipedia

Have you heard of the "Glamour Press"? Those are journals that will publish almost anything as long as someone pays them. Let me check out the other.

Ooops, same publisher.

Nope, that is an 0 for 2.

GodsGrace101 said:

I do know that gravity is not understood, but at least everyone knows it exists.

Click to expand...

Ditto with evolution.

I looked at the link for Lucy. We would see all this back through my schooling years. It seems like not much has changed. What I find very interesting is the big jump to modern man. It seems like a really big change all of a sudden, by the timeline given.

Do you agree?

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree. Even just considering our closet living relatives (e.g. other Great Apes), we have far more in common biologically than there are differences.

Looking at the fossil record we have a steady progression of hominid fossils leading up to modern humans. At no point is there a sudden transformation into modern humans.

In fact, one of the most fascinating things about the hominid fossil record are creationist interpretations. Creationists can't agree on which fossils are human versus which are not. Which is what you'd expect given an evolutionary transition over time.

xianghua said:

lets say that its true. what about these other 2 articles?:

Genetic Analysis Of Coordinate Flagellar And Type Iii Regulatory Circuits In Pathogenic Bacteria

Click to expand...

A couple of creationists speculating about a single type of flagellum and concluding Jesus. Totally impressive...

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Click to expand...

Why is a creationist physicist writing about bird lungs?

tas8831 said:

A couple of creationists speculating about a single type of flagellum and concluding Jesus. Totally impressive...

Why is a creationist physicist writing about bird lungs?

Click to expand...

Also they both failed the challenge of being from a well respected peer reviewed journal. The source appears to be an example of the vanity press, a journal that will print anything as long as they get paid for it. They were on a lost of predatory journals. People publishing far outside of their areas of expertise making rather crazy claims, reputable journal or not? Do I even need to ask.

xianghua said:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Click to expand...

Having read that particular article multiple times it does not actually present any evidence of design.

It's actually quite a poor article and I'm surprised the Discovery Institute would refer to it.

pitabread said:

Having read that particular article multiple times it does not actually present any evidence of design.

It's actually quite a poor article and I'm surprised the Discovery Institute would refer to it.

Click to expand...

When scientific journals that scientists do use won't print nonsense then one has to find someone that will.

pitabread said:

Having read that particular article multiple times it does not actually present any evidence of design.

It's actually quite a poor article and I'm surprised the Discovery Institute would refer to it.

Click to expand...

Well, they do have a publication issue. You may recall that the much lauded 'Bio-Logic institute' had a 'publication' page that for months only had a couple of Axe's and Guager's essays. It got really embarrassing for them, so they just plastered all of the publications, regardless of relevance, of pretty much everyone associated with the DI. Most likely in hopes that none of their target audience would actually look at the titles or actually read them.

Subduction Zone said:

Why is a creationist physicist writing about bird lungs?

Click to expand...

why darwin (a geologist) wrote about evolution?

xianghua said:

why darwin (a geologist) wrote about evolution?

Click to expand...

Whatever gave you the idea that Darwin was a geologist?

Speedwell said:

Whatever gave you the idea that Darwin was a geologist?

Click to expand...

my bed. i found it now that he also was a biologist (i dont know why i remember that he was just a geologist). but its irrelevant since even a non-biologist can write about biology if he give evidence to support his claims.

xianghua said:

why darwin (a geologist) wrote about evolution?

Click to expand...

Back then specialization did not occur as today. And you still have not realized that you used a failed source. I said that it had to be a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. The journal that you found is not well respected. It appears to be a member of the glamour press. It is a pay to publish outlet that will rubber stamp any idea where people have paid enough money.