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.
Here's something you can harp on and call the authors "uneducated liars," if you want to:Also, delays they ran into weren't because they were looking in the wrong formation, it was because they had to find lacustrine layers within the specific formation they were at.
Here's something you can harp on and call the authors "uneducated liars," if you want to:
Tiktaalik roseae: A Fishy Missing Link
So you cant respond and you go on to post random links? Are you unable to speak for yourself? Unable to give an adequate response? Why cant you see your own dishonesty?
As Ken Miller once said, one side argues with authentic evidence and in this case, prediction, the other side simply shrugs their shoulders in denial.
So you cant respond and you go on to post random links? Are you unable to speak for yourself? Unable to give an adequate response? Why cant you see your own intellectual dishonesty?
As Ken Miller once said, one side argues with authentic evidence and in this case, prediction, the other side simply shrugs their shoulders in denial.
If you really think that you could find your own tiktaalik, or something comparable simply by looking at where people catch fish...good luck.
Because it was predicted in reference to predecessors and post existing tetrapods. Do you think it was just pure random chance that they found tiktaalik out in the middle of nowhere in Canada in a random rock?
It was a very early tetrapod and not necessarily the first. It was found by using a combination of knowledge of geology and the theory of evolution which predicted that that particular time was when the first tetrapods (please note the plural) first evolved.how if the tiktaalik appeared after the first tetrapod? tiktaalik prediced to be after tetrapods or before?
if it is a prediction how is that the first tetrapod appeared before the tiktaalik? its like saying that evolution predict that the first human will appear before the first ape.
That situation is a bit different from the fossil finds of Lucy's species and your suggestion that the foot found with them could be from our species. After all, we have a multitude of fossils for Lucy's species, but there appears to be only 1 for Protoavis. The Protoavis bones were collected from a mass of mixed bones (likely the result of mass death from a local flood) thus what bones belong to what species can be easily mixed up. Additionally, this anatomy looks cartoonish https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Protoavis_paratype_skeletal.png . The "wing" looks entirely wrong for a species originally proposed to be an ancient bird or bird ancestor. I wish I could find a better image of this fossil, but I can't seem to find any. The fossils were also crushed into pieces before being stuck back together in that position, and the bones that weren't crumbled mostly aren't birdlike (with the skull being the closest to having avian features).
What I was referring to is that the bones of the foot were found with the body they belong to. Though, to be extremely blunt, the hip ALONE is enough to confirm upright walking in this species. There are no quadruped mammals with hips like that, for reasons of structural integrity.secondly: do we have any evidence that this bone indeed end up in the anatomically correct positions, or its just one out of many other bones and fossils in the area of this discovery?
I never said that the fossil record was proof of evolution, or even that it was particularly strong evidence for it. However, it's relevance to the theory remains in the consistent order. Your constant, incorrect assertion that the order of the fossil record is irrelevant to evolution annoys me. You ignore and choose not to address my statements about how it could be used to disprove evolution quite easily, while continuing to assert that the fossils could be in any order and it would still somehow serve as evidence for evolution. I'll quit commenting on your incorrect assertion when you stop making it, or finally decide to address the points I have made about it honestly.first: i was talked about evidence for evolution and not about evidence that may falsified evolution. the order itself cant prove anything. we can arrange also cars and trucks in hierarchy. but of course that it doesnt prove evolution. the same go for fossils: any series of fossils cant prove evolution.
-_- read your sources next time rather than cherry pick ones you think support your position.about the article i linked too: i actually doesnt read the paper. i only mantion it because the abstract says:
"Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once
but lets ignore this article for this discussion and focus about the problems i have mantion above.
So is "prediction" authentic evidence in your view?
My point stands: science only gets political when politics stands in its way.Heliocentrism was equally incorrect and eventually replaced the Ptolemaic system and yes a bit of fraud has occurred in all areas (but no where compared to this idea since the very beginning) and I am proud to admit (and did) that it is scientists themselves that finally debunk them.
-_- the definition of what a species is has changed over time to make the categorization more useful and accurate to reality. That's the entire point of scientific progress. I'm sorry that the precise definition of species isn't as cut and dry as you were taught in high school, but that's a personal problem, not science's problem.But selective exclusion, pouring new meaning into commonly understood terms, the use of image imprinting, and more, are clearly indicative of a propaganda campaign (the researchers themselves are not to blame).
Then it should be really easy for you demonstrate beyond an assertion.The racist and sexist roots are undeniable.
The initial reaction to evolution was outrage from the scientific community. It was loathed. This is why the Scopes trial in the US occurred in 1925. That's about 66 years AFTER Origin of Species was published.Long before Evolution was proven true it was to be treated as if it were in academic circles.
So sayeth you, in your personal opinion. That species change over time is the observation, and evolution is an explanation of the process. However, your actual contention is likely with the observation itself rather than the theory that explains WHY and HOW it happens. That sounds like a personal problem to me, because that observation is not contestable.There is far too much that relies on interpreting the data according to the theory (and I have shown some of these instances here and elsewhere)
Adolph Hitler banned evolution in classrooms and Origin of Species was on his burn list. I guarantee that YOU have a better understanding of evolution than Hitler did. Furthermore, Hitler is not, nor ever has been, the norm, genocides predate evolution (they even are mentioned in the bible).Remember Ota Benga (Anthropologists) and Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger (Eugenics) for starters...the textbook defended by Clarence Darrow (a racist rag)...? Again yes it was defeated by scientists as well (and I commend them) but only after generations had been brainwashed, the effects of which lingered for decades. Today if you dissent from the mantra you can fail your courses, be discredited in your field, lose your position in institutes of higher learning, groups and ethnicities are deemed more or less primitive, more or less evolved, and more.
Once again, I cannot answer questions that do not make sense to me.why you cant answer a simple theoretical question?
What are you talking about? Something like a horse? If so, then no, I don't think things like horses need a designer.if you will find a car that can produce other cars and made from organic components, you cant conclude design in this case?
No you did not. I wrote a paragraph explaining why this is not so, and you simply ignored it and claimed victory. That is exactly what I said you would do, yes?so i have showed that those transitional cant prove evolution by showing that trnasitional can be found also in objects that not evolved.
Uh, no, the heart and brain and other organs do not exist in a fertilized egg. But they are added one step at a time as the embryo develops. That is a picture of how evolution works: One step at a time. Biology can remain viable with proteins and functions added one step at a time.are you kidding me? we are talking about evolution of complex system and you gave a system that already exist amd make the human body.
Comma.i dont care. you ask for a scientific papers that show that the flagellum cant evolve. so i bring those papers. period.
Read the paragraph you quoted and ignored. The answer is in the paragraph you ignored, which I repeat again:what is the different if those two can add changes and keep them?
Would you like to tell me how the prediction was made if not by the explanatory power of uniformitarian geology, the fossil succesion and biological evolution?
No! I already know this explanation but I was asking if "prediction" is authentic evidence for you (since you said it I thought you might clarify).
No! I already know this explanation but I was asking if "prediction" is authentic evidence for you (since you said it I thought you might clarify).
After how many tries?Last year the last of Einstein's predictions for General Relativity was confirmed. It was a pretty big deal.
Corroboration.Why does it matter?
It was a very early tetrapod and not necessarily the first.
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?