Are there transitional fossils?

[Jimmy D]

BTW....

You haven't shown in anyway that a dogs have "degraded genome" in comparison to wolves, simply saying so won't cut it, what's the difference?

You seem to be confused by the fact that selective breeding has led to less genetic diversity which can lead to problems.

The irony of this is that we could expect to see this reduced gene pool in all animals, including wolves, if a worldwide flood had occurred. Except, of course we don't, how do you explain that?

When did this worldwide flood you claim wiped out virtually all life on Earth happen anyway?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

See above.

So did man bring about red tailed deer, white tailed deer, etc

You see the same thing with all life that you do with dogs, just less variety over time since man isn't accelerating the process.

Your argument holds no merit except in your own mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We're not talking about dogs, flies or plants. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOSSILS AND SEDIMENTS!
I don't why I even bothered taking you off ignore since all you do is repeat the same tired crap ad nausieum and take joy in the fact that you annoy people to no end with it.

Funny I could of swore you specifically mentioned dogs. Keep up on your own posts and pay attention so you don't get lost.

You have shown nothing except your own claims. And your use of dog breeds is idiotic since those are MAN-MADE BREEDS not found in nature.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Funny I could of swore you specifically mentioned dogs. Keep up on your own posts and pay attention so you don't get lost.

But I never switched the conversation to dogs, THAT WAS YOU. I was just pointing out that your claim that various MAN-MADE breeds of dog invalidates evolution is idiotic because those breeds ARE MAN-MADE AND NOT FOUND IN NATURE.

 

[xianghua]

It can predict that some transitional fossil could be found, but it cannot say for sure because of the spotty nature of fossils in the record.

so it predict transitional fossils or not? if it predict then we most find such fossils. so you cant say "it cant say for sure".

However, many transitionals have been found, and that is evidence for evolution

not at all. as i explained with the cars example.

That is why I asked you over and over what you believed. But you refused to commit.

lets say that for the sake of the argument i believe in several creation events. now, what do you think is best explain by the evidence: a natural evolution or a design?

 

[xianghua]

Simply put, if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms in "all" layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is we find all fossils without exception, in a sequence that only evolution could provide.

it will not falsified evolution either. in this case we can claim that all creatures just evolved fast and stay in stasis for a very long time, because they where well adapt to their environment. actually many creatures are the same today as they was about 400 my ago:

Sturgeon - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

it will not falsified evolution either. in this case we can claim that all creatures just evolved fast and stay in stasis for a very long time, because they where well adapt to their environment. actually many creatures are the same today as they was about 400 my ago.

You have an amazing inability to understand how evolution would be falsified. If we did find fossils in every sedimentary layer in the world, that would falsify evolution because we not be able to find a mechanism in evolution that would allow genetics to evolve in the way they did. For example, finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution because it would not make sense.

 

[xianghua]

For example, finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution because it would not make sense.

so finding a tetrapod below any fishapod (transitional between a fish and a tetrapod)will disprove evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so finding a tetrapod below any fishapod (transitional between a fish and a tetrapod)will disprove evolution?

I have a feeling that you think that is what has been found. But it hasn't. They aren't tetrapods, they are fishapods.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Rivers, lakes, seas, landslides, bogs, volcanoes, earthquakes? I don't know.

And yet only maybe .1%, if that of all fossils have been found in volcanic ash. You and I both know almost all of them are found in sedimentary layers.

Those dying in bogs would decompose, just like we see them doing today. Without immediate burial in a sedimentary process speculation about other means is useless since they are invariably found in sedimentary layers.

 

[Jimmy D]

Those dying in bogs would decompose, just like we see them doing today.

For Peat's sake, bogs are well known for preserving remains.

 

[Jimmy D]

And yet only maybe .1%, if that of all fossils have been found in volcanic ash. You and I both know almost all of them are found in sedimentary layers.

Those dying in bogs would decompose, just like we see them doing today. Without immediate burial in a sedimentary process speculation about other means is useless since they are invariably found in sedimentary layers.

I couldn't care less to be honest. Most is not all.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'll ask a third time......


You haven't shown in anyway that a dogs have "degraded genome" in comparison to wolves, simply saying so won't cut it, what's the difference?

You seem to be confused by the fact that selective breeding has led to less genetic diversity which can lead to problems.

The irony of this is that we could expect to see this reduced gene pool in all animals, including wolves, if a worldwide flood had occurred. Except, of course we don't, how do you explain that?

When exactly did this worldwide flood you claim wiped out virtually all life on Earth happen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

BTW....

You haven't shown in anyway that a dogs have "degraded genome" in comparison to wolves, simply saying so won't cut it, what's the difference?

You seem to be confused by the fact that selective breeding has led to less genetic diversity which can lead to problems.

The irony of this is that we could expect to see this reduced gene pool in all animals, including wolves, if a worldwide flood had occurred. Except, of course we don't, how do you explain that?

When did this worldwide flood you claim wiped out virtually all life on Earth happen anyway?

Then we should expect this reduced gene pool when mas extinction wiped out the dinosaurs and most of the other life, yes?

So your claim it had to occur does not of course apply to your own beliefs.

Since I start closer to a perfect gene to begin with, I have no problems with over time genetic loss and errors occurring limiting the gene pool.

Bringing it in line with what we see today with 98% of the genome junk DNA as they call it.

No, you are confused, your starting point for the genome has led you to believe a problem exists where the correct starting point leads to what we observe today.

Your 5 mass extinctions limit your gene pool more than my one. But since I start with the correct view of the genome, this problem does not affect me.

Since all breeds of dogs came from the wolf, you should be able to understand that within its genomes all genetic combinations for the different breeds were possible. Yet you can not breed a poodle into a wolf.

Your view of the starting point of the genome is flawed because of your flawed belief in evolution.

You seem to be aware dogs have genetic problems then need proof to back your own belief?

Problems Common to Purebred Dogs

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I couldn't care less to be honest. Most is not all.

I know, ignoring 99% of the evidence is nothing new for you. I expect nothing less.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

it will not falsified evolution either. in this case we can claim that all creatures just evolved fast and stay in stasis for a very long time, because they where well adapt to their environment. actually many creatures are the same today as they was about 400 my ago:

Sturgeon - Wikipedia

That's the problem, everytime one claim is falsified they just claim something else. And on and on the farse continues.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

it will not falsified evolution either. in this case we can claim that all creatures just evolved fast and stay in stasis for a very long time, because they where well adapt to their environment. actually many creatures are the same today as they was about 400 my ago:

Sturgeon - Wikipedia

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?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But I never switched the conversation to dogs, THAT WAS YOU. I was just pointing out that your claim that various MAN-MADE breeds of dog invalidates evolution is idiotic because those breeds ARE MAN-MADE AND NOT FOUND IN NATURE.

Which switched the conversation to dogs. At which point I pointed out to you the offspring of two breeds brought together by man or natural processes would be the same. The only difference time and number of varieties.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which switched the conversation to dogs. At which point I pointed out to you the offspring of two breeds brought together by man or natural processes would be the same. The only difference time and number of varieties.

No, YOU switched it to dogs by bringing it up in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For Peat's sake, bogs are well known for preserving remains.

But you must first understand the difference between mummification and fossilization.

Bog body - Wikipedia