Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

I traced the links back and we were indeed discussing dogs and infraspecific taxa, don't confuse your posts.

Are there transitional fossils?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

But if conditions are changing causing claimed changes in every other species (as your incorrect classifications lead you to believe) why are these unaffected when most share the same niche as those forced to change (by your incorrect classifications of course)

Or perhaps you have some classifications correct which shows no change and points out the error in your other classifications?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I traced the links back and we were indeed discussing dogs and infraspecific taxa, don't confuse your posts.

Are there transitional fossils?

NO WE WEREN'T. YOU were the one who kept bringing them up and I said that they were not part of the discussion since we were only talking about transitional fossils and sediments. If anyone needs to stop confusing their posts it's you, because look at my response in post #773.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

You're right, I was confused, I have trouble keeping up with all the different creation beliefs on here. Don't you think that dogs were on the ark then?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But if conditions are changing causing claimed changes in every other species (as your incorrect classifications lead you to believe) why are these unaffected when most share the same niche as those forced to change (by your incorrect classifications of course)

Or perhaps you have some classifications correct which shows no change and points out the error in your other classifications?

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. It's that bloody simple.
And since you are oh-so knowledgeable about classifications, why do we not see any scientific papers from you? Why do you never post to your own papers where you ACTUALLY challenge the scientific consensus, instead of being an anonymous blowhard on the internet?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're right, I was confused, I have trouble keeping up with all the different creation beliefs on here. Don't you think that dogs were on the ark then?

Certainly they were, but since we have already seen the great variety wolves are capable of, your next claim that whatever canine species was on the ark, wolf or its predecessor, could not have led to what we see today has already been falsified.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're right, I was confused, I have trouble keeping up with all the different creation beliefs on here. Don't you think that dogs were on the ark then?

I understand, I have trouble keeping up with all the evolutionary beliefs on here too.

As one of your fellow evolutionists said quite well, we will just claim......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you should understand I have no reason to assume my high priests are any more correct than your high priests and as all are human subject to the same mistakes. Unlike you I don't assume they are correct simply because most believe something to be true.

As a matter of fact I was specifically warned some will try to teach false beliefs so to be aware.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. It's that bloody simple.
And since you are oh-so knowledgeable about classifications, why do we not see any scientific papers from you? Why do you never post to your own papers where you ACTUALLY challenge the scientific consensus, instead of being an anonymous blowhard on the internet?

Just joining your company of blowhards. Try looking in the mirror poster on this forum.o
What kind of excuse is because they didn't have to when the one living right next to it was forced to?

Ahh but now I am to accept that on your say so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just joining your company of blowhards. Try looking in the mirror poster on this forum.

But I'm not the one pretending that I know more than the scientists. I see what the scientists uncover, I look at the evidence they provide and my logical brain makes the connection that they are right. You're the only one acting like a knowitall (know-it-all?) on the playground.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But I'm not the one pretending that I know more than the scientists. I see what the scientists uncover, I look at the evidence they provide and my logical brain makes the connection that they are right. You're the only one acting like a knowitall (know-it-all?) on the playground.

I see an entire living world where infraspecific taxa exist in every species. I see a fossil classification that has not a single one. My logical brain concludes from the evidence that they are wrong in their classifications since it fails to match observational evidence we can see right around us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see an entire living world where infraspecific taxa exist in every species. I see a fossil classification that has not a single one. My logical brain concludes from the evidence that they are wrong in their classifications since it fails to match observational evidence we can see right around us.

Dromaeosauridea: Taxonomy
Read it, learn it and weep.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dromaeosauridea: Taxonomy
Read it, learn it and weep.

Now you want to classify a family group as a species? Yet when creationists made that claim.......

No consistency.

And besides, I never said you had them all wrong, just 90% of them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now you want to classify a family group as a species? Yet when creationists made that claim.......

No consistency.

And besides, I never said you had them all wrong, just 90% of them.

Yes you did.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But if conditions are changing causing claimed changes in every other species (as your incorrect classifications lead you to believe) why are these unaffected when most share the same niche as those forced to change (by your incorrect classifications of course)

Or perhaps you have some classifications correct which shows no change and points out the error in your other classifications?

Yes you did.

No, go look back you will specifically find the number 90% quoted.

So no we can assume from your claim that every genus is the same species, is this what you are saying? Are you sure that's the claim you want to make? Think about your answer long and hard before you speak.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I expect they do have this one correct with one defined species and the rest subspecies. But what does that tell us about all the other classifications of genus where they have multiple defined species?

Kudos for finding that one correct genus classification which points out all their other mistaken ones tho!

I am weeping alright. Tears of joy for the quandary you just put yourself into.

 

[xianghua]

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

this is a fiishapod?:

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

 

[xianghua]

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?

its not. see again what im writing. i said that the claim above that if we will find all creatures in the same layer will not falsified evolution.

 

[USincognito]

There are so many inconsistencies here I will try to be brief.

Thanks.

You say "Avian dinosaur is an accurate scientific appellation differentiating avian theropods from non-avian theropods" Who are you chubby checker? You love doing the twist? That statement right their is a later development via the changing of meaning to commonly accepted terms (not a natural evolution of language, but an intentional alteration of terms to make the hypothesis APPEAR valid).

O.k. Let's parse this out. The problem is you're approaching a scientific subject as a Platonist. To you "bird" and "avian" can only refer to a flying (mostly) being with feathers that chirps and tweets. Similarly "dinosaur" means any large reptile. The thing is science, and especially cladistics doesn't take a Platonist approach. Something can be clade X and clade Y as long as it has the hallmark characteristics of both groups. Appellations are monophyletic when they refer to a group of populations and are exclusive to other populations. Thus "dinosaur" is monophyletic when it refers to land dwelling archosaurs of the clade "Dinosauria" and excludes flying reptiles and marine reptiles. However, it includes those who descend from Dinosauria if they possess all the characteristics of members of that clade. In this case birds (which is a laymans term, not a scientific one) nest (no pun intended) within clade "Theropoda". Thus it is entirely accurate to refer to "non-avian dinosaurs" and "avian dinosaurs".

The rest is BS you are throwing in either to make yourself appear to know or to make me appear to be ignorant neither of which is the case.

If you say so. I'll just stick with the facts rather than personal attacks.

And Pterosaurs are huge reptiles (dinosaurs) that have wings.

Thanks for "teaching" me something I've known since the mid-70s. But your parenthetical comment is incorrect. Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. They are flying reptiles.

Fun fact - Dimetrodons weren't dinosaurs either. They were synapsids and more closely related to mammals than to dinosaurs.

Cladistics is just a new way of grouping and classifying that questions the standard tree model. It still depends largely (but less and includes other factors considered) on the assumption that similarity in structural/functional anatomy automatically implies a lineal relationship...

I always find it ironic that Creationists "assume" cats (for example) are related because of similarity, but reject that other groups are related because of similarity. It's almost as if they draw arbitrary lines and make it up as they go along rather than take a serious and, dare I say, "systematic" approach to the subject.

(which though accepted by the indoctrinated is ony one way of interpreting that evidence).

Sorry, but when you start using the same slander as conspiracy theorists, you've already compromised having an honest discussion.

 

[xianghua]

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

yep. its not a scientific claim.