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.
The diets of various peoples can be determined by the middens they left behind.No, it turns out he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and I have no shame on saying that openly.
Saying "Didn't they make it sound like it was discovered through conventional evolution models, when in truth, the Inuit (?) Indians were talking about them all the time?
Even eating them for breakfast?"
Was entirely disingenuous on his part because it blatantly makes it sound like the animal in question was still alive when paleontologists claimed to have discovered it (in his world), when in fact the entire process was basically they did discover the fossil, and as they wanted a name for it, the native Inuit groups went and asked if they could call it this particular name.
The name in question.... Tiktaalik, which is an Inuktitut word meaning "burbot", a freshwater fish related to true cod.
He's talking about Tiktaalik in that last example, which is an Inuktitut word meaning "burbot", a freshwater fish related to true cod. Which in his mind means that the Inuit people were going around eating the Devonian creatures for their meals in the modern day.
The diets of various peoples can be determined by the middens they left behind.
The eating habits of Australian Aboriginals from 20,000 years ago is well known from their middens.
The Inuits also left middens and their is no evidence of Tiktaalik being on the menu.
You know very well it is a pointless exercise to present this refutation to AV.
Speciation is reproductive isolation. As Darwin pointed out, this means that if evolution is true, we'd see populations in all sorts of transitional stages, as well as new species. Which is what we see.Not hardly.
Now they call it "speciation" -- which is about as vague as translucent glass.
You're confused again:Macroevolution is one genus to another.
"Kind"is a religious term. For example, the Bible puts birds and bats in the same kind. Because "kind" is a religion-based functional category, not a biological one.And before you say anything -- yes, I know, you guys define "genus" as anything but "kind."
You're just trying to use it in the wrong context. It works perfectly well for functional categories (animals that fly). But scientifically, it's useless.Then when someone gives a clear-cut definition of "kind," using the Online Etymology Dictionary and a host of online dictionaries, it gets naysaid.
And it gets naysaid so they can win arguments against creationists.
He's very useful in illuminating YEC thinking and why it leads them so far astray.I fail to understand why you and other posters even bother to respond.
Conversely species which were found in Australian Aboriginal middens are extinct today.It's hard to leave a midden of something that died out millions of years before you could it.
What AV was saying... ah hell, just look at the post above this one since I'm on my phone right now.
A lot of YECs erroneously cite coelacanths, but no species from the fossil record is alive today.
No, it turns out he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, and I have no shame on saying that openly.
"Kind"is a religious term.
That's very nice that you added a YEC as approving of these transitional organism but it didn't seem to sway him enough to make him be a believer in macroevolution. He still claims to be a YEC.Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods)
Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates)
Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids)
Yes. He admits that there is very good evidence for evolution, but he prefers his interpretation of the Bible. He's an honest and knowledgeable YEC. They do exist.That's very nice that you added a YEC as approving of these transitional organism but it didn't seem to sway him enough to make him be a believer in macroevolution. He still claims to be a YEC.
Yeah, science is never about proof. The evidence is convincing. The evidence for atoms as actual objects is similarly convincing."All direct and indirect evidences convincingly indicate the fossil to be an aquatic precursor of dry-land microphyllous plants, i.e. lycophytes." Convincingly but not absolutely, so this is open up to debate.
More specimens have been found with more details. And as your author suggests, the animal, when turned what was assumed to be "upside down", suddenly has all the features of a chordate, our own phylum:Given these discrepancies and a lack of unambiguous chordate synapomorphies, several authors have suggested alternative placements among protostomes.9,10,11" Didn't really follow this part too well but there's those words again, "lack of unambiguous". Sounds like this is on shaky ground possible.
In mammals, teeth are the best way to classify. So this little mammal had primate teeth. It's not the only primate known from this era:This is one of the big ones here, going from the small furry mammal to giving us the apes and humans
Lots of transitioinals there. What stage between a stem amphibian and a mammal do you think is missing? I can't think of one. The big jump is from amphibians to amniotes (reptiles, dinosaur/birds, and mammals) Would you like me to show you that?(the other big on is going from the amphibian-like creature to the small furry mammal)
Westlothiana Lizziae is transitional between amphibians and amniotes.(I don't think they've found that one yet, have they?)(the amniote?).
See above. We have a rather complete skeleton of a very early primate. Just where a transitional primate should be. Now, you are probably surprised that all these transitionals exist. But even more impressive, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No Cambrian mammals. No insects with bones, not mammals with feathers.Is this based on DNA samples from the teeth that connects us with them or is it just the teeth and jawbones? How many of these samples have the scientists found? Did these guys just eye the teeth up and said, "yep, this is the connection between small mammals and humans"? Seems a little farfetched to me and I'm sure many others.
From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind. "Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level. Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus. Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
But, as you learned, the coelacanths scientists were talking about became extinct millions of years ago. None of the species alive today are in the fossil record.That's the one, Barbarian.
They did. We just weren't aware of some other species of coelacanth that evolved after other genera and families went extinct.These discoveries were remarkable because coelacanths were previously thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
No, humans evolved from Australopithicus.You have said this numerous times, explain then what happened because the whole idea of evolution is man evolved from single celled organism
Wrong again.(who miraculously put themselves together from non-living material).
That doesn't match with what you wrote above.First, single celled organism then multi celled organisms then primitive sealife then amphibians like creatures then small mammals then tree dwelling mammals then primitive hominids then man. That is what every site I go to says about evolution.
I like how you call them alternate fights and not alternate theories, because these thoughts have no evidence to support them.Isn't it obvious - macroevolution, the theory of evolution, darwinism. Alot of scientist put a fit up when schools teach, in addition to evolution, alternate thoughts on the origin of life.
You're still confusing abiogenesis with evolution.If the theory of evolution were absolute fact then we wouldn't have to say there are alternate thoughts on the origin of life but evolution is just a theory (though many scientists defend it like it's the gospel truth on everything.
Nobody is claiming that theories are factual.Plus alot of thoughts on many space topics - dark matter, the galaxy at the furtherest reaches of the universe, dark energy, black holes. Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.
"Kind"is a religious term.
From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind. "Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level. Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus. Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.
Either that, or I got the two animal stories mixed.
Let me know when I'm supposed to report to the firing squad.
Conversely species which were found in Australian Aboriginal middens are extinct today.
These include the Procoptodon which became extinct 46,000 - 47,000 years ago.
The Genyronis became extinct 47,000 years ago.
The Diprotodon became extinct 46,000 years ago.
These megafauna extinctions illustrate there were multiple evolutionary pressures in operation.
(1) Climate change during the late Pleistocene (~40,000 - ~50,000 years ago leading to aridification of large areas of the Australian continent).
(2) Hunted by humans who entered Australia ~65,000 years ago.
(3) Large scale destruction of their habitats by the early humans who used fire sick farming.
You know very well it is a pointless exercise to present this refutation to AV.
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?