Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You didn't say anything and that's typical. You offer a random link and just make a lot of personal remarks that have nothing to do with anything.
Nothing about the comparative genetics and nothing about the fossil evidence. This tells me all I need to know about you.
You haven't said anything and you are just looking for a chance to say something harsh about a creationist. Yet another typical evolutionist who has no real argument.
Primate fossils can be kinda rare, so that is possible. However, just because an explanation could be made doesn't mean that it wouldn't hurt the evolutionary timeline; it would still have to change significantly. The reliability of a theory stands on the quality and quantity of the evidence in support of it compared to the evidence against it. Evolutionary theory has so much evidence in support of it, that it would be neigh impossible for any single piece of dissenting evidence to disprove it. I mean, dissenting evidence for the theory does exist, it's just not nearly strong enough or in high enough number to disprove the theory or demand significant revision at this time. The theory has been revised before. In fact, most scientific theories go through many revisions, especially when they start out.
-_- well, duh, no single thing would likely be able to disprove the whole thing. However, a genuine rabbit fossil from the Precambrian would bring the evolutionary timeline to its knees, and require that the current ideas behind the mechanism behind species changing over time be severely revised or completely replaced.
No, genetics disproves that idea in the extreme. I'd say that the most likely conclusion to be made would be that reptiles still came before mammals and mammals evolved from them, it just happened way earlier than we thought, unless the fossil is found in the Precambrian. Then stuff gets wreaked.
Except we don't ever see the same creatures evolving twice. All mammals share the common genetic heritage of mammals. Would it be possible for a different reptile, over millions of years to develop mammary glands, have hair, and be warm blooded? Yes, that might be possible, but the result would not be a true mammal. The new creature would most likely obtain these features using different structures and different DNA. The odds that it would develop all the exact mutations needed to be like a mammal are so astronomical, it should be considered impossible.
Sure, there are minor adjustments in the timetable as we learn more details. But the basic timetable has been known for decades, with very little changes.
Evolutionist don't need an argument because evolution speaks for itself and creationists have nothing but words in an old book to back them up.
The eyes that evolved at different times are very different, evolving with different DNA and different structures. The ability to sense light is very valuable. The ability to sense the pattern of light coming from an area (using eyes) is also very valuable. So the fact that many creatures used the available structures they had to develop sight is not a surprise. That is different from having homologous eyes.
For the same reason that a bat is not a bird. Having a wing does not make you a bird.
There is a difference between the arm of a man, the paw of a bear, and the wing of a bat. And yet they all have the same homologous structure. Looking at it with the trained eye, it becomes obvious all came from the same evolutionary pathway.
Sure, because they both swam and swimming requires stabilization against rolling. So it would be expected that both would develop the ability to stabilize against rolling, and that is efficiently done with a dorsal fin. I am no expert on anatomy, but I would predict the structure of the dorsal fin on the ichthyosaur would be quite different from the dolphin.
Where? So far you have failed to give us an example of fossils in the wrong order.
Why do you keep going to hypotheticals? Why not deal with reality?
Again, you are talking about similarity of function, which nobody denies. Fish, dolphins, and Ichty needed to keep from rolling over when swimming, and each has a dorsal fin, the ideal means of staying upright. But just as both bats and birds have wings, but do not have the same wing, so fish, dolphins and Ichty did not have the same dorsal fin. Fish generally have rays from the backbone that support the fin. Ichty had no such rays, and it wasn't even known if they had dorsal fins until we found fossils with the fin shape preserved. But Ichty had no bones to support it. Needing a dorsal fin, but with the supporting bones gone, it simply improvised and evolved tissues that would do the same thing as the dorsal fin on the fish. That is not the same thing as the dorsal fin on the fish. Having the same shape and function does not mean it is using the same structure.
Uh, because you made the claim there are fossils out of sequence, that is why you should give us an example.
