Because it is not "transitional" by definition of that term...and Archae (which is still claimed to be by many) certainly cannot be...
Upvote
0
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.
And how does showing that there is an earlier transitional link the evolution of avians and reptiles hurt evolution?
Because it is not "transitional" by definition of that term...and Archae (which is still claimed to be by many) certainly cannot be...
But those languages weren't Italian. They were the Celtic languages of Italy, but not Italian. Just like how no-one in England at the same time as the Roman Empire spoke English but spoke Celtic.
And you didn't answer my question: Can you look through the history of language and clearly point out when the first Latin speaker became the first Italian speaker?
Well, I was going to post a picture of one I took myself in the quoted post, but for some reason the picture kept turning at a 90 degree angle. So, here's the picture now anyway.Don't believe your lying eyes everyone. I think that's a song. So we will ignore it I guess. Add it to the list of ignored observational evidence. That list is getting to be a manuscript in itself.
But I did answer...I said "I cannot..."! When did the first indigenous Italian speak Latin?
How is it not transitional if it shows a change from reptilian to avian?
And perhaps you could actually show us the fossil involved since I'm trying to find it and I'm getting bupkis.
It doesn't!
It would probably have been around the 10th century BC, give or take, with Ancient Latin.
So why can't you show when the first Latin speaker became the first Italian speaker?
Well I certainly don't plan on going to every museum webpage to find out to show you error, but this one by itself has over 850,000.I think his context is misunderstood. I could hand you a piece of limestone the size of my hand it would contain millions of actual fossils. The same is true with other marine fossil conglomerates. Again context, how many individual vertebrate fossils are there in museums? No where near that number.
Probably have been is subjunctive thus plausible at best and speculative at worst but I get it...neither you or I can really know. Why? And this is the answer to your question...
Because there is no actual evidence (period)!
But dinosaurs are not reptiles, I thought we covered that despite the millions of papers produced which were wrong for close to 200 years.I don't know what you're seeing but I see a clear transition from reptilian to avian form in that fossil.
But dinosaurs are not reptiles, I thought we covered that despite the millions of papers produced which were wrong for close to 200 years.
I see an extinct species.
Except there is actual evidence. We have evidence in the case of writing that show Ancient Latin becoming Classical Latin which then became Vulgar Latin which then branched into the Romance Languages, and then we get early Italian in the 13th century AD.
Just like how with fossils we see a clear transition from reptilian forms to avian forms.
We DO have evidence, it's just your own preconceived religious views stop you from admitting that.
Except no paleontologist believes dinosaurs are reptiles any more. Despite the fact they published millions of papers and declared it as fact for close to 200 years.
But they are all correct this time right? Even if they believed they were correct too when wrong.
I don't know what you're seeing but I see a clear transition from reptilian to avian form in that fossil.
The error stems from being convinced that if one thing exists before another it must be its cause.
Yeswe have fossils of reptiles that are older than fossils of avians. So what.
a) fossils are actually very rare
b) Sometimes they are even mixed by nature or by man
c) fossilization depends on certain factors that more likely effected reptiles (grouded beasts) more readily than birds (many of whom dwelt above ground)
d) Finally the logic error of false causality makes us INTERPRET what we see based on our presupposition, not the knowable truth
I have even heard modern Evolutionary Biologists refer to birds as "Dinosaurs" which simply by definition CANNOT be true (yet they believe it rigorously).
AGAIN: They are reptil-IAN. Note the -IAN suffix. It comes from the Latin -anus, which means "to be like".
Bloody Nora, but that was just so pathetically simple that even a primary school student could have gotten that.
Why do you take such pride in being wrong?
I ignore the infraspecific taxa because all you ever say about it is "I am right because I say I'm right." How are you not getting this?
You simply saying that you are right does not mean that you ARE right. You have not once presented any evidence for anything you have said and you continually ignore any calls for you to give evidence.
The only one coming up with garbage classifications and insults is you.
rep·til·i·an
repˈtilyən/
adjective
noun
- 1.
relating to or characteristic of reptiles.
- 2.
(of a person) deeply disliked and despised; repulsive.
"a reptilian villain with no redeeming features"
- 1.
an animal belonging to the class Reptilia ; a reptile.
I am right. I asked you to look at the world around you.
Are YOU claiming there are not infraspecific taxa within every species?
But I am to take your word for it because you say so, right? Despite the fact if you ask any biologist they will tell you many infraspecific taxa exist in every species.
Go ahead, I dare you to do just that
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?