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.
Right and before that you believed it was equus. But now you want me to believe that they were wrong but now right.Science disagrees. Hyracotherium is regarded as the ancestor of the horse and zebra. It led to the Eohippus, which is now regarded a different genus, that led to the Orohippus and all the other fossils leading up to the horse and zebra.
What about the Eohippus or Merychippus? Do you think they are in the horse family?
I did, you just never read it like you never read anything.
Are there transitional fossils?
You are trying to jump into a conversation you know nothing about nor have the knowledge to comprehend.
Uh, no I never said that Hyracotherium was Equus. Again, here is a chart of what we have found in the horse series:Right and before that you believed it was equus. But now you want me to believe that they were wrong but now right.
You still haven't given me any evidence to believe they are correct when they can't even get babies and adults of the same species correct.
Wait, if the finches on the Galapagos came from two sub-species of finch, doesn't that agree with what I said that they came from one species? And yet when I say the Galapagos finches came from a small group of one species of finch, you say no, they came from two sub-species of the same species of finch. Huh? How does this contradict what I said?No, they didn't evolve at all. Two subspecies merely mated and the joining of genomes created different subspecies, just like we observe with dogs.
You misunderstand the concept of species. "Species" is not a cast in stone definition, with all members of a species interbreeding and no gene transfer outside the species. Rather there is a huge gray area, with anywhere from frequent gene transfer to a gene transfer that occurs only in exceptional conditions. So where do we draw the line as to where a species ends? Species are an arbitrary definition simply for convenience in naming animals.What do you find difficult to understand when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses?
Must I show you where other birds that were thought to be reproductively isolated from others when found to be mating were reclassified as the same species? So apparently they know the right thing to do, just refuse to do it.
Radiocarbon dating? Why would one use radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils? Radiocarbon is not accurate beyond 50,000 years. At that point, all it can tell you is that this object must be older than 50,000 years. So I am not at all surprised that a method that is good at dating recent objects, but can not tell us the actual date of Jurassic objects, tells us that dinosaur fossils are somewhere more than 50,000 years old.And yet radiocarbon dating their fossils gives dates of 45,000 to 85,000.
Why is it acceptable to accept radiocarbon dates on canine fossils but refuse to accept them on Dino fossils? Besides that they want to believe one is correct and the other incorrect because it doesn't agree with their pet theory?
The occurrence of a fossil ape in Mesozoic rocks would be quite impossible and would contradict everything that we know about the evolution of primates.
If the Devonian tetrapods didn't have Silurian ancestors, where do you think that they came from?
We have found many fossils in the ape family, but none that date to dinosaur times. That makes it extremely unlikely that we will find an ape fossil back then. Should we find one, that either means that apes and mammals evolved a lot earlier than expected, or that this ape somehow came from somewhere else (popped into existance, came on a rocket from the planet of the apes, fell down a hole and ended up in an older layer, etc.) That would be huge news, and scientists would work to resolve the problem.what is the problem? we can say that apes exist eariler then we assumed. we just dont find yet their fossils. remember then even according to evolution about 99% from the species that ever exist dont left any fossil.
Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive? Why does "being designed" exclude "evolved"? Couldn't a creature have both evolved and been designed? You have been asked that over and over. You refuse to answer. And you keep coming back with, "It was designed, therefore it couldn't have evolved." And you must surely know how I will answer when you say that. I will ask why it couldn't be both designed and evolved. And you know i will ask that, and yet you just keep coming back with the claim that if it was designed, then it could not have possibly evolved.they was designed, and doesnt evolved from other species.
Or tha it as you put it, popped into existence after the dinosaurs went extinct.We have found many fossils in the ape family, but none that date to dinosaur times. That makes it extremely unlikely that we will find an ape fossil back then. Should we find one, that either means that apes and mammals evolved a lot earlier than expected, or that this ape somehow came from somewhere else (popped into existance, came on a rocket from the planet of the apes, fell down a hole and ended up in an older layer, etc.) That would be huge news, and scientists would work to resolve the problem.
Which is as to be expected since water creatures were created first, then land animals then man.But again all your arguments seem to be based on "what if". What if we find a fossil that refutes the known fossil record? Then we deal with it. But for now what we have is a very clear fossil record, which tells a very significant story about the past, and we go by it. We have found enough fossils that we can say with statistical certainty that microbes existed long before trilobites, that trilobites existed long before fish, that fish existed long before Tiktaalik, that Tiktaalik existed long before mammal-like reptiles, that mammal-like reptiles existed long before early placental mammals, that early placental mammals existed long before apes, and that apes existed long before humans. We can make such claims with statistical certainty, because there is so much evidence for each claim. We have known this for many years, and have found nothing to refute it.
And shouldn't since created in that order. But since most misinterpret the Hebrew word hayah, it's understandable if they believe incorrect dates of creation.And yet you will make a case over the idea that perhaps the first land dweller has been on the land a little earlier than we had previously had evidence for. This is not a major upset to science. Scientists are looking at it, and seeing if they need to make a minor adjustment in the timetable. None of this refutes the major timeline we found.
Except there is no evidence anything evolved into anything. Each new order of life is separated by a global extinction, followed by the appearance of all new life forms fully formed that resemble not those that went previously. Just as after the sixth destruction, all new life will again be created to repopulate the earth. Such as a lion that eats straw, which will certainly not be the lion we know today.Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive? Why does "being designed" exclude "evolved"? Couldn't a creature have both evolved and been designed? You have been asked that over and over. You refuse to answer. And you keep coming back with, "It was designed, therefore it couldn't have evolved." And you must surely know how I will answer when you say that. I will ask why it couldn't be both designed and evolved. And you know i will ask that, and yet you just keep coming back with the claim that if it was designed, then it could not have possibly evolved.
Got more proof of design than you got that random chance will produce the complex structures we see along with a universe that follows laws so well we can predict things will happen. Nothing random to it its design at all. I understand you believe it's all random, but that's merely faith as well.You have not proven that any creature was designed. But even if you had, that would not rule out evolution. That would not prove the theistic evolutionists here are wrong. But that will not stop you form pretending that all the posts that told you this were never written. Why are you doing that?
Radiocarbon dating? Why would one use radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils? Radiocarbon is not accurate beyond 50,000 years. At that point, all it can tell you is that this object must be older than 50,000 years. So I am not at all surprised that a method that is good at dating recent objects, but can not tell us the actual date of Jurassic objects, tells us that dinosaur fossils are somewhere more than 50,000 years old.
When we use methods that are meant to measure really old stuff, we find the dinosaur bones are in layers that are over 60 million years old.
Wait, if the finches on the Galapagos came from two sub-species of finch, doesn't that agree with what I said that they came from one species? And yet when I say the Galapagos finches came from a small group of one species of finch, you say no, they came from two sub-species of the same species of finch. Huh? How does this contradict what I said?
Regardless, all the finches of the Galapagos appear to have come from one species (or as you put it, two sub species of the same species). They then spread out to form what scientists now regard as multiple different species.
I could care less when they arrived. They have been interbreeding since they arrived. Were never reproductively isolated and never underwent speciation.The article you quoted said the original finches on the islands were about 1.5 million years ago. Do you agree that this is when the first finch reached the islands? If not, when do you think it happened?
Good excuse to attempt to ignore your own scientific definition of species.You misunderstand the concept of species. "Species" is not a cast in stone definition, with all members of a species interbreeding and no gene transfer outside the species. Rather there is a huge gray area, with anywhere from frequent gene transfer to a gene transfer that occurs only in exceptional conditions. So where do we draw the line as to where a species ends? Species are an arbitrary definition simply for convenience in naming animals.
Now if a scientist was arguing that two different finches were not interbreeding, when they were interbreeding "under their nose", that would be wrong. But they are not arguing that. So you appear to misunderstand "different species of finches" to mean "groups that never, ever, have gene transfer between them," but that is not what species means.
Today, most biologists are more interested in understanding the process of speciation than in trying to find a strict species definition that is always applicable. Speciation is usually a gradual process, so it is not unusual to encounter populations that are only partly reproductively isolated. This means that individuals from diverged lineages may still exchange genes to a limited degree, perhaps even to the extent that they will merge again. These situations are challenging for both the biological species concepts and lineage species concepts. Although some people may wish for a black-and-white criterion for defining species, this is unrealistic. By analogy, imagine a population of maturing humans. Most individuals will be easily recognized as children or adults, but some will be difficult to categorize and these difficult individuals might be tagged differently by different people using different criteria (e.g., different physical characteristics, different measures of emotional maturity, etc.). Similarly, most individual birds or snails or mushrooms can be readily categorized as belonging to one species or another, but exceptions are not rare. (source)
No I am arguing from science. Without scientific definitions there is no meaning to anything. People can then say what they want at any time and call it science, just like you are trying to do. You are the one arguing semantics, insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because you find them too restrictive and not to your liking, despite the fact evolutionists wrote every last one of them.You are arguing from semantics. You are arguing whether it is OK to call these finches by a different species name. See Darwin Finches - Galapagos Darwin Finch Facts with Quasar Expeditions. All agree that each finch basically interbreeds with itself, but there has been some gene transfer between them.
This is false. I accept any dates that are confirmed by science.You don't accept any dating unless it conforms to your evolutionary beliefs, what are you talking about.
This is false. I accept any methods that are confirmed by science.You'll reject any dating method if the dates obtained don't agree with your pre conceived theory.
This is false. I accept any data, even if it makes me change a preconceived theory.Actual data is irrelevant, it will be conformed to theory, not theory to the data.
This is false. I made no attempt to ignore the scientific definition of species.Good excuse to attempt to ignore your own scientific definition of species.
People can then say what they want at any time and call it science, just like you are trying to do.
You are the one arguing semantics, insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because you find them too restrictive and not to your liking, despite the fact evolutionists wrote every last one of them.
This is false. I do not refuse to accept scientific definitions.Did you think your pseudoscientific mantra excuse of why you refuse to accept scientific definitions would make me forget you have yet to justify their speciation in the first place?
This is false. If you want to call all the the finches on the Galapagos one species you may. I don't call them one species, because scientists do not regard them as one species.Besides, you don't believe your own PR to begin with because if you believed it was simply a convention to name things you wouldn't be resisting calling them one species so hard.
This is false. I believe the things I post. I am not making up things that I do not believe in.So don't give me excuses you yourself do not believe in.
This is false. I have shown respect to you and others here. I ask only that you please not post false statements about me.At least show some respect, maybe you'll get some back.
So those Finches fit the scientific definition to a T. Oh but I forgot, you are ignoring the scientific definitions.
So then what reason would we have to conclude that the population of animals released from the ark and then rapidly diversifying would no come into stability with their environment which every animal population but man does?That would assume human population always grew at that rate. Nobody believes that.
Let me try that without justifying my claims.Justatruthseeker,
All of the following statements about me from your last few posts are false. Can I ask you to please be more careful in what you say about other people.
This is false. I accept any dates that are confirmed by science.
This is false. I accept any methods that are confirmed by science.
This is false. I accept any data, even if it makes me change a preconceived theory.
This is false. I made no attempt to ignore the scientific definition of species.
This is false. I am not insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because I find them too restrictive or not to my liking.
This is false. I am not trying to say what I want and call it science.
This is false. I do not refuse to accept scientific definitions.
This is false. If you want to call all the the finches on the Galapagos one species you may. I don't call them one species, because scientists do not regard them as one species.
This is false. I believe the things I post. I am not making up things that I do not believe in.
This is false. I have shown respect to you and others here. I ask only that you please not post false statements about me.
This is false. I do not ignore scientific definitions.
Sincerely, from a man who just seeks the truth,
doubtingmerle
That is the opposite of what I did. You will notice that for each one of the false statements you posted about me, I explained why it was false.Let me try that without justifying my claims.
This is false....
But they once believed it was Equus, and since you believe whatever they tell you, you believed that once too.Uh, no I never said that Hyracotherium was Equus. Again, here is a chart of what we have found in the horse series:
Equus is at the top of the chart. It does not appear until the last few million years. It is a genus that includes the modern horse species, donkey and zebra. Hyracotherium is a different genus, from 50 million years ago, at the bottom of the chart.
I don't care where you draw the line, they will all be one species.But anyway, if you strike Hyracotherium off as not a horse ancestor, what about Eohippus? What about Orohippus? What about Merychippus? Somewhere you need to draw the line. And wherever you choose, there will be something just over the line that looks very much like the animals you included.
That's your mistake believing I accept the same flawed interpretation of the Hebrew "hayah" as they promote. We agree totally.All of this is expected from evolution. None of this is expected from young earth creationism.
For the same reason there have been six creations and five destructions, with each form in the new creation being fully formed and different than those that went before.What is your explanation for why the fossil record looks like this? Why isn't it donkeys and zebras all the way down to 6000 years ago, and then no more fossils?
Stop ignoring the scientific definitions of species when we discuss those finches that are interbreeding right in front of the researchers noses and perhaps I won't attack your integrity.That is the opposite of what I did. You will notice that for each one of the false statements you posted about me, I explained why it was false.
We are not here to attack other posters. Please quit attacking the integrity of other posters. You did that multiple times in the last few posts.
It is too much to ask that you please quit posting false statements about other people?
OK, let's add this to your list of false, derogatory statements about other people that you have posted. Please quit publishing false, derogatory statements about other people.But they once believed it was Equus, and since you believe whatever they tell you, you believed that once too.
I have not ignored the definition of species. I have been addressing it with you. I have explained to you that it is a complex concept, and is not always clear where the species dividing line is.Stop ignoring the scientific definitions of species when we discuss those finches that are interbreeding right in front of the researchers noses and perhaps I won't attack your integrity.
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?