Are there transitional fossils?

[Speedwell]

why it will be a problem for evolution? we can claim for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice) or something else.

You might make that claim, but even the dimmest evolutionary biologist would know better.

 

[USincognito]

. No one even explore the possibility it might be a transitional chimpanzee, that won't get you written about in National Geographic.

Technically she (and AL-288-1 is not the only specimen of Au. afarensis) is. But then you know that already.

 

[USincognito]

so if we will find first cars, then a commercial cars, and then a trucks in a specific order we should conclude that those vehicles evolved from each other?

Why are you having such trouble comprehending that vehicles don't reproduce or pass on their genetic material to offspring and thus aren't analogous to living beings?

 

[xianghua]

Why are you having such trouble comprehending that vehicles don't reproduce or pass on their genetic material to offspring and thus aren't analogous to living beings?

its doesnt matter. even if they was able to reproduce its will not prove any evolution but design. so the point i have made is valid.

 

[mark kennedy]

why it will be a problem for evolution? we can claim for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice) or something else.

Convergent evolution is when the same species develops the same adaption at different times and or in different places. The arctic cod for instance developed a gene that creates an antifreeze protein and this coevolved at least four times.

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.

If it is a bird.

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.

They don't prove evolution, they presuppose it.

 

[Papias]

That's exactly what she was (a chimpanzee - from before), but because she was female she was a little smaller then the mean average.

Um, no. First, it's obvious to anyone familiar with hominid anatomy that A. afarensis isn't a chimpanzee. Many features of the feet, pelvis, etc, show that. Would you like to admit you wrong and move towards being right, or dance around that for a while?

Secondly, you can't say anything about her brain capacity compared to chimps or other Aas because the "Lucy" skeleton did not include an intact skull. She may have well been above the mean average. (mean = average, so "mean average" is redundant). We know the brain size of Aas due to other fossils. Speaking of that, you know that there well over a dozen other Aa fossils, not just the one called "Lucy", right?

Thirdly, we know why we find human ancestors and not chimp ancestors - and that's because chimps stayed in the forest, where fossilization is much more rare. Several of us have told you this over the years mark. You know this - yet you keep bringing up the idea that the human ancestor fossils we find are devolving back on their way to chimps or something weird like that.

I'm not sure I'll have time to get to all the other things wrong in recent posts. Maybe others will.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

All this does is how that you don't understand what the science behind the theory of evolution says.

People say this becasue they can't explain it either.

 

[xianghua]

Convergent evolution is when the same species develops the same adaption at different times and or in different places. The arctic cod for instance developed a gene that creates an antifreeze protein and this coevolved at least four times.

so a mammal from a 300 my old layer will not falsified evolution. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

Convergent evolution is when the same species develops the same adaption at different times and or in different places. The arctic cod for instance developed a gene that creates an antifreeze protein and this coevolved at least four times.

Or simply the same designed gene turning on or off as needed.
Super design. Not random mud slinging.

Can genes be turned on and off in cells? - Genetics Home Reference

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People say this becasue they can't explain it either.

What are you getting at?

 

[mark kennedy]

Um, no. First, it's obvious to anyone familiar with hominid anatomy that A. afarensis isn't a chimpanzee. Many features of the feet, pelvis, etc, show that. Would you like to admit you wrong and move towards being right, or dance around that for a while?

While question begging can be mildly abrasive and intimidating for the misinformed, I know Lucy has a chimpanzee skull. Pedantic references to random anatomical terms won't change that. She was never more the a knuckle dragging tree dwelling ape.

Secondly, you can't say anything about her brain capacity compared to chimps or other Aas because the "Lucy" skeleton did not include an intact skull. She may have well been above the mean average. (mean = average, so "mean average" is redundant). We know the brain size of Aas due to other fossils. Speaking of that, you know that there well over a dozen other Aa fossils, not just the one called "Lucy", right?

Lucy's skull was in pieces as I recall but nearly complete, there is little question with regards to this being an ape. With a gracias skull in Africa it's a chimpanzee, possibly antideluvian.

Thirdly, we know why we find human ancestors and not chimp ancestors - and that's because chimps stayed in the forest, where fossilization is much more rare. Several of us have told you this over the years mark. You know this - yet you keep bringing up the idea that the human ancestor fossils we find are devolving back on their way to chimps or something weird like that.

You mean modern chimpanzees inhabit the Savannah of equatorial Africa and the Bobobos currently inhabit the jungles of the Congo. Except for the fact that the only fossils ever identified as chimpanzee was found in the Rift Valley, in between the famous Oldovia Gorge and Lake Turkana were the myth of the stone age ape man was crafted by the Leakys.

I'm not sure I'll have time to get to all the other things wrong in recent posts. Maybe others will.

I would be shocked if you seriously addressed anything of substance I have said. The genetic basis for the three food expansion on the human brain from that of apes has never drawn so much as a passing remark. The fact that Lucy would have been contemporary with Homo habilis and Turkana Boy doesn't even occur to you. The range of those fossils, since I know you have done no background reading on the subject is almost six hundred c.f..

Your an evolutionist. You don't need proof, you don't need research, you don't even need a substantive agreement. Just contradict and condescended to creationists ad hominem in circles ad infinitum.

Me personally I like cause and effect to begin with and then something like actual evidence. It's not real popular these days but it the only legitimate way to have a substantive discussion of empirical evidence.

May the truth prevail,
Mark

In Christ-

Papias[/QUOTE]

 

[mark kennedy]

Or simply the same designed gene turning on or off as needed.
Super design. Not random mud slinging.

Can genes be turned on and off in cells? - Genetics Home Reference

What are you talking about? That's a prime example of convergent evolution. A complete de novo (brand new) protein coding gene evolved at least four different times with the exact same effect.

Look up arctic cod antifreeze gene.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so a mammal from a 300 my old layer will not falsified evolution. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Just a mammal? Maybe not, but if it was from a modern species, like our own, it most certainly would.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ahhhhh the inevitable ad hominem gauntlet. You guys cave so easy

so a mammal from a 300 my old layer will not falsified evolution. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Again I have no idea what you are talking about. I brought up genetic divergence and hominid fossils. I don't anything about a 300 my fossil bed. As a matter of fact I was specifically making reference to arctic cods

 

[SkyWriting]

What are you talking about? That's a prime example of convergent evolution. A complete de novo (brand new) protein coding gene evolved at least four different times with the exact same effect.
Look up arctic cod antifreeze gene.

I'm saying there is not such thing as "convergent evolution". It is a designed feature for fish. It doesn't even have to be the
same process to be designed in on purpose.
But you asked me to look it up:

"Either the species are closely related and both inherited their antifreeze genes from a common ancestor, or the antifreeze glycoproteins evolved independently in the two lineages"
No ice in their veins - Understanding Evolution

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ahhhhh the inevitable ad hominem gauntlet. You guys cave so easy

You REALLY need to stop calling in an ad hominem when people disagree with you on things.
The way you keep using that term consistently and obviously shows that you don't understand it's usage.

 

[Speedwell]

argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

"Speedwell is a Bible-hating Anglican" is merely an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument wrong because it is illogical and he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is a refutation followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is an ad hominem.

 

[mark kennedy]

You REALLY need to stop calling in an ad hominem when people disagree with you on things.

I will when they stop correcting matters of fact or opinion with curt condescending melodrama.

e way you keep using that term consistently and obviously shows that you don't understand it's usage.

And there you just did it again. Fallacies are illogical because there is no substantive point of reference. The subject (me) is wrong, not why, just wrong. Being an evolutionist doesnt make you intellectually superior based solely on the other person being a creationist. You pontificate the meaning of a latin expression without any reference to the word or its meaning. A classic ad homined taunt.

 

[mark kennedy]

argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

"Speedwell is a Bible-hating Anglican" is merely an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument wrong because it is illogical and he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is a refutation followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is an ad hominem.

Actually the way it works is, Speedwell is wrong...

Notice how it just leaves you hanging? It's like the Darwinian effect without a cause. The last time we did this you were arguing ad hominem exclusively. Theistic evolutionists are uniform in this approach with only rare theological or scientific exceptions. Yet they pontificate like experts.

 

[Chriliman]

Why are you having such trouble comprehending that vehicles don't reproduce or pass on their genetic material to offspring and thus aren't analogous to living beings?

The claim that life can come from non-life through mindless unintentional processes is analogous to claiming a car can come from something that isn't a car through mindless unintentional processes.

I understand neither you or evolution is making that claim, but once we figure out evolution, we must then ask the bigger question, "what life caused life on earth and the process of evolution?" Some of us have skipped over the details of evolution and gone straight for the bigger question and God answers. Discovering more about how life developed on earth is just icing on the cake.