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.
But if conditions are changing causing claimed changes in every other species (as your incorrect classifications lead you to believe) why are these unaffected when most share the same niche as those forced to change (by your incorrect classifications of course)Question for you: why does the fact that animal fits so well in to an ecological niche that it doesn't need to evolve outside of a few morphological changes falsify evolution? Sharks, crocodiles, sturgeons and lungfish haven't really evolved much in the last several million years, so why is that a problem for evolution?
I traced the links back and we were indeed discussing dogs and infraspecific taxa, don't confuse your posts.
Are there transitional fossils?
Ahh, I see the problem. You believe I believe the flood that wiped out the dinosaurs was the same flood as Noah's flood. Starting with an incorrect assumption based upon incorrect interpretation of scripture I can see you might confuse the two.
But if conditions are changing causing claimed changes in every other species (as your incorrect classifications lead you to believe) why are these unaffected when most share the same niche as those forced to change (by your incorrect classifications of course)
Or perhaps you have some classifications correct which shows no change and points out the error in your other classifications?
Certainly they were, but since we have already seen the great variety wolves are capable of, your next claim that whatever canine species was on the ark, wolf or its predecessor, could not have led to what we see today has already been falsified.You're right, I was confused, I have trouble keeping up with all the different creation beliefs on here. Don't you think that dogs were on the ark then?
I understand, I have trouble keeping up with all the evolutionary beliefs on here too.You're right, I was confused, I have trouble keeping up with all the different creation beliefs on here. Don't you think that dogs were on the ark then?
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. It's that bloody simple.
And since you are oh-so knowledgeable about classifications, why do we not see any scientific papers from you? Why do you never post to your own papers where you ACTUALLY challenge the scientific consensus, instead of being an anonymous blowhard on the internet?
Just joining your company of blowhards. Try looking in the mirror poster on this forum.
But I'm not the one pretending that I know more than the scientists. I see what the scientists uncover, I look at the evidence they provide and my logical brain makes the connection that they are right. You're the only one acting like a knowitall (know-it-all?) on the playground.
I see an entire living world where infraspecific taxa exist in every species. I see a fossil classification that has not a single one. My logical brain concludes from the evidence that they are wrong in their classifications since it fails to match observational evidence we can see right around us.
Dromaeosauridea: Taxonomy
Read it, learn it and weep.
Now you want to classify a family group as a species? Yet when creationists made that claim.......
No consistency.
And besides, I never said you had them all wrong, just 90% of them.
But if conditions are changing causing claimed changes in every other species (as your incorrect classifications lead you to believe) why are these unaffected when most share the same niche as those forced to change (by your incorrect classifications of course)
Or perhaps you have some classifications correct which shows no change and points out the error in your other classifications?
No, go look back you will specifically find the number 90% quoted.Yes you did.
this is a fiishapod?:I have a feeling that you think that is what has been found. But it hasn't. They aren't tetrapods, they are fishapods.
its not. see again what im writing. i said that the claim above that if we will find all creatures in the same layer will not falsified evolution.Question for you: why does the fact that animal fits so well in to an ecological niche that it doesn't need to evolve outside of a few morphological changes falsify evolution? Sharks, crocodiles, sturgeons and lungfish haven't really evolved much in the last several million years, so why is that a problem for evolution?
There are so many inconsistencies here I will try to be brief.
You say "Avian dinosaur is an accurate scientific appellation differentiating avian theropods from non-avian theropods" Who are you chubby checker? You love doing the twist? That statement right their is a later development via the changing of meaning to commonly accepted terms (not a natural evolution of language, but an intentional alteration of terms to make the hypothesis APPEAR valid).
The rest is BS you are throwing in either to make yourself appear to know or to make me appear to be ignorant neither of which is the case.
And Pterosaurs are huge reptiles (dinosaurs) that have wings.
Cladistics is just a new way of grouping and classifying that questions the standard tree model. It still depends largely (but less and includes other factors considered) on the assumption that similarity in structural/functional anatomy automatically implies a lineal relationship...
(which though accepted by the indoctrinated is ony one way of interpreting that evidence).
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?