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.
i also explained to you why you are wrong. but you keep claiming the same when in reality we find many genes in far species but not in some species between them. and the "explanation" for this non-hierarchy is a gene loss.It's not. This has been explained to you countless times by now. Why do you keep posting this nonsense?
Just because you want your pet theory to be true doesn't make it true.
i also explained to you why you are wrong. but you keep claiming the same when in reality we find many genes in far species but not in some species between them. and the "explanation" for this non-hierarchy is a gene loss.
those same experts agree that there is many cases of non-hierarchy. they just try to solve this by convergent evolution or gene loss. the facts are the same for both creationists and evolutionists (again: its a fact that we find the same genes in far species but not in some species between them). the interpretation is different.The experts who actually know what they're talking about disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them? Do you have some form of education in the field? Have you published a paper in a relevant peer-reviewed journal?
i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.The easiest way to disprove evolution would be to see all life forms, both flora and fauna, in the oldest sedimentary layers of strata. Has anyone been able to do this?
No, that's how a creationist would approach the problem, but it won't work. Ad hoc explanations and reliance on imaginary and unevidenced processes aren't acceptable.i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.
Your answer to every evidence for evolution seems to be, "But what if we didn't have all this evidence?"i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.
Right, there is plenty of other evidence, even if we had no transitional fossils. And so, even though Darwin had little in the way of transitional fossils, he still could follow the evidence to say that evolution occurred. And he could predict that transitional fossils migh be found. And he was right. Transitional fossils were found.actually, even darwin admit that the lacking of transitional fossils is because of the poor fossil record (at time). evolution was still valid even if we will not find any transitional fossil.
I will say this one more time. Evolution predicts that transitional creatures existed. It can predict that some transitional fossil could be found, but it cannot say for sure because of the spotty nature of fossils in the record. However, many transitionals have been found, and that is evidence for evolution.also remember that some claims that any fossil is a transitional, so it will be funny in this case to say that evolution predict transitional fossils. if we never found the mammals-like reptiles evolution was still be valid.
Uh, only if your design model consists of a designer who tinkers with his design, and keeps coming up with new variations of creatures. That is why I kept asking you what you believed. If you believe in the tinkering designer, than the fossil record does not refute you. There are other things that refute you. But if you believe everything was created ex nihlo in one week, then the fossil record refutes you. That is why I asked you over and over what you believed. But you refused to commit. Instead you selected the jello model of opinions, in which you let your view vary all over the place, and thus nobody is able to talk about what you believe. That proves nothing. That only proves that it is impossible to nail jello to the wall. But we already knew that.not realy. i have showed to you that even the design model predict "transitional fossils". like we find in human engineering.
Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.
-_- do you not understand that there are easy to measure limits on how fast and how slow evolution can occur? The conditions that would cause it to entirely stop don't exist (it would demand that mutation not occur), and there is only so fast that species can reproduce and experience mutations before the rate of mutation becomes too much for the population to be sustainable (which is why exposure to high levels of radiation and other mutagens can kill you and prevent you from having healthy enough offspring to make it to maturity).i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.
So the theory is unfalsifiable as they'll just make new claims everytime the evidence falsifies one belief. At least someone admitted it finally.i dont think it will disprove evolution. in this case we can claim that all creatures evolve fast and then stay in a stasis for a long time. or even claim for an extreme convergent evolution. or an unknown geological process that mix up all the fossils.
Look up "the law of recurrent variation. They found in actual plant and animal husbandry that the same forms kept repeating with mutation, so even the forms within the species is limited.-_- do you not understand that there are easy to measure limits on how fast and how slow evolution can occur? The conditions that would cause it to entirely stop don't exist (it would demand that mutation not occur), and there is only so fast that species can reproduce and experience mutations before the rate of mutation becomes too much for the population to be sustainable (which is why exposure to high levels of radiation and other mutagens can kill you and prevent you from having healthy enough offspring to make it to maturity).
You act as if a tenant of evolution is "there is no such thing as biological limits", which couldn't be further from the truth. Theories are made because there are limits on the possibilities in our universe. No matter how much I flip a coin, there are only three possible outcomes (assuming the coin lands): heads, tails, or the rare occasion that it lands on its side. An animal with no HOX genes cannot exist naturally and be native to this planet. Argon based life will never exist on any planet and be naturally occurring (since argon is resistant to forming bonds).
There's no point in building a theory around a "free for all".
Wait, we have found thousands of mammal-like reptile fossils before there was ever a mammal. Dozens of genera, probably hundreds of species, thousands of fossils.
And yet you say there are none found before the first mammal appeared abruptly?
Bzzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for trying.
See List of pelycosaurs - Wikipedia .
A fossil in the process of fossilization will be a partially fossilized animal.
And I take it that you've never heard of the Gobi Desert then? No surprise there.
No, no, no. Darwin said the lack of transitionals would be fatal to the theory. He expected them to be found as they should outnumber the rest. Hundreds of years later and with over 400 million fossils added to the list..... Fatality when and if they ever admit it.actually, even darwin admit that the lacking of transitional fossils is because of the poor fossil record (at time). evolution was still valid even if we will not find any transitional fossil. also remember that some claims that any fossil is a transitional, so it will be funny in this case to say that evolution predict transitional fossils. if we never found the mammals-like reptiles evolution was still be valid.
not realy. i have showed to you that even the design model predict "transitional fossils". like we find in human engineering.
Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.
So what?Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.
Science in general, and evolution specifically, runs on a sliding scale.So the theory is unfalsifiable as they'll just make new claims everytime the evidence falsifies one belief.
Actually some of the so-called transition forms were alive when early mammals already existed, so therefore they are unlikely to be true transitions. This also applies to the dino to bird transition, the most likely explanation is what evolutionists call "convergence".If you read through this thread, you will see that we spent a lot of time talking about the one aspect of mammal and reptile anatomy that does fossilize well, the bones of the jaw and ear. And there we find exactly what evolution predicts. Early animals have the reptile jawbone, but none have the mammallian jaw. Then we see a long series of transitionals over many millions of years, with jawbones progressively more like mammals, until creatures finally appear with the two back bones of the reptile's jaw converted into bones of the inner ear of the mammal.
Actually wikipedia is a strong source of information on biology (with the caveat that sometimes unqualified people post there). See, for instance, this exhaustive reference on Theropoda with multiple citations: Theropoda - Wikipedia .
Actually some of the so-called transition forms were alive when early mammals already existed, so therefore they are unlikely to be true transitions. This also applies to the dino to bird transition, the most likely explanation is what evolutionists call "convergence".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?