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.
It's been explained to you slowly and carefully why mutations are random but evolution is not.in random way,
Find me a modern mammal skeleton deep in the Jurasiac, then we can talk.
. Even if they were more birdlike than archy, that would not disprove evolution.
Wait, what? How can creation account for the hundreds of transitional fossils that were found? How can it account for all the mammal-like reptile fossils, for instance, that are found in layers millions of years before the first mammals?
You have found nothing close to a true bird before archy. What we have found is a mix of poorly fossilized specimens which may have some features more birdlike than archy, but probably not. That is different from finding birds. You did not find birds down there. As archy is not considered the direct ancestor of modern birds, but only a distant cousin of the ancestors of modern birds, it won't be earth shattering if we find fossils that are more birdlike a few millions of years before archy. Find me a modern bird down there, then we can talk.you see how easy is it for evolution? even if its was a true bird (dating about 60 my before the suppose first bird) it will not fallsified evolution. the same for mammal from the jurassic.
No, you have not. You have shown that the distant descendents of presumed common ancestors are many years after the common ancestor. Of course! That does not prove the common ancestor lived the same time as his distant descendents.first: as i showed: a lots of suppose missing links arent in the correct place. and secondly: we can find a lots of missing links also in designed objects. but again: its doesnt prove any evolution.
I wrote what I meant - I was talking about species, not speciments. I was talking about impossibility of macroevolution based on what's available for us to see. To counter, you explained how mutations within species work, a microevolution. I don't dispute microevolution.
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, wouldn't fossils like anchiornus and archaeopteryx be what you would expect to find? How can these not be called transitionals?
It's been explained to you slowly and carefully why mutations are random but evolution is not.
Selection occurs.
That you repeat that error in the same thread tells me there is no point in telling you the same information again and again.
All the best.
And that's why we don't see more failed species. The mutations are unable to be fixed in the population.Natural selection "works" after something is mutated. And it doesn't only occur in a womb. Other natural environments are selective too, don't take the glory from them. Selection would indeed occur and there would be evidence for us to see.
All this does is how that you don't understand what the science behind the theory of evolution says.
People say that, but never offer up what they are thinking.
The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy.
Can you have it both ways? If mutations are random, then process is random.
What you call "evolution" is not end state, it's a process. Process cannot be random and not random at the same time.
It's one of the two. If it is random, then you have orders (upon orders) of magnitude more failed tests, and however you choose to explain their distinction, there should be evidence of it.
Actually her skull was a little small for a chimpanzee.Lucy is a chimpanzee?
I repeat this matter of fact and opinion because the Taung child replaced the Pildown hoax. Why do you continue to shamelessly flame people of different opinions, perhaps you should look into ad hominems anonymous, fallacies are not your friends :Why do you keep repeating this lie? And you have been told dozens of times now why don't find chimpanzee fossils. Why do act as if you have not?
That's exactly what she was, but because she was female she was a little smaller then the mean average. You see, every time a gracial (smooth) skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically a human ancestor. No one even explore the possibility it might be a transitional chimpanzee, that won't get you written about in National Geographic.So she wasn't a chimpanzee?
Really now?
And that's exactly what evolution is.
Natural Selection, much like the coin sorting device, acts like a filter upon the random input coming from mutations. Which random mutations ends up surviving, being past on to off spring and eventually achieving fixation in the genome is not random at all.
There is an easy to understand logic that regulates this process. Natural Selection.
The input is random.
The process is not.
Therefore, neither is the outcome.
A process typically consists of, at minimum, three things:
- input
- processing logic
- output
In evolution, this translates to:
- mutation during reproduction
- natural selection
- survival & go back to step 1
The input is random. The process itself is not.
And there is. Lots and lots of it.
That's exactly what she was, but because she was female she was a little smaller then the mean average. You see, every time a gracial (smooth) skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically a human ancestor. No one even explore the possibility it might be a transitional chimpanzee, that won't get you written about in National Geographic.
I'm not following, was it a small chimpanzee, a traditional chimpanzee or an early homo species?
Are you suggesting that no one examines these skulls? I can't say that I find that very convincing to be honest.
xianghua,
We have found many transitional fossil that appear deep in the fossil record, exactly where we would expect them. For instance, there is a series of mammal-like reptiles that appear deep in the record, long before modern mammals appeared. They look like transitionals leading up to modern mammals. How do you explain all these mammal-like reptiles?
No, you have not. You have shown that the distant descendents of presumed common ancestors are many years after the common ancestor. Of course! That does not prove the common ancestor lived the same time as his distant descendents.
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?