Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Arius]

Wow! That's not what evolution claims at all. Are we supposed to defend that straw man? Go ahead and knock it down; we don't care.

Of course Evolutionist would never claim that; "in a point in Spacetime between the 4.2 billion years of biological Evolution, a gorilla gave birth, or split and turned into two very distinct species, while the other gorillas remained gorillas, and this is how 'speciation works'"!

Instead the answer is either ridicule anyone questioning their religious beliefs, or: "speciation happens gradually over millions and billions of years".

Again I ask, and yes, if you believe in Evolution through speciation, you can answer me too:

Q. In the video above Clinton Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL (born 26 March 1941) an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 is pointing to a T in time where (I can only assume) "one type of species gave birth to humans, AND to a chimpanzee and bonobo. What species was that "T" species he calls "common ancestor" that did this?

Was it a Gorilla, a Human, a Humilla, a Gorillaman, .. what? And how did he or she produce these two distinctive, which by the way had to be a pair, male and female NEW species?

 

[Speedwell]

You appear to have entirely rejected the propositions that,
a. "Species" is a man-made construct not inherent in the creatures themselves
b. Speciation represents a quantitative, rather than qualitative change.
c. That it takes place over many generations.
d. That no offspring is very different from its parent(s),
e. That there is no point during speciation that one may definitively say that a creature of one species has given birth to a creature of another species.

Am I right in assuming that you reject them?

 

[Arius]

Wow! That's not what the theory of evolution claims at all. Are we supposed to defend that straw man? Go ahead and knock it down; we don't care.

Hello Speedwell, .. "straw man"?? How, why, where?

Evolution definition Biology:
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. - Wikipedia

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, I have a question for you on biodiversity?

'Biological diversity' means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. - Google

So let's take horses, we cross breed horses and we can note all the differences that appear over successive generations from the original two, this can be used to prove "Evolution" correct?

So does this really prove speciation?
Like if I shown a miniature poodle and all the in-betweens up to a Great Dane, that would only show variations within a specific species, in this case "dog". Nowhere does the dog change into any other species.

What I find even more startling is that from the 8 million species that we have on hand, still alive, yet no Evolutionary so called 'scientist' has EVER recorded one switching over to a completely different species. Never even once even thou evolution and speciation has been going on for the past 4 BILLION years. And guess what, from the apr. 9 million scientists alive today, not one is even watching for any animal, human, or chimp or butterfly etc. .. evolving, speciating, switching over to another species, .. why is that?

Not only that, but we have YouTube even in the remotest corners of the world, and not one of the 8 BILLION humans has ever recorded any of the 8 million species we have alive today speciating over to another species. And again, .. I doubt that ANYONE is even watching for such "absolute proof of biological evolution", mainly speciation, is there an explanation for that?

Thank you.

 

[Speedwell]

So let's take horses, we cross breed horses and we can note all the differences that appear over successive generations from the original two, this can be used to prove "Evolution" correct?

No.

So does this really prove speciation?
Like if I shown a miniature poodle and all the in-betweens up to a Great Dane, that would only show variations within a specific species, in this case "dog". Nowhere does the dog change into any other species.

No.

What I find even more startling is that from the 8 million species that we have on hand, still alive, yet no Evolutionary so called 'scientist' has EVER recorded one switching over to a completely different species. Never even once even thou evolution and speciation has been going on for the past 4 BILLION years. And guess what, from the apr. 9 million scientists alive today, not one is even watching for any animal, human, or chimp or butterfly etc. .. evolving, speciating, switching over to another species, .. why is that?

Because no one expects it to happen that way. No one expects that a creature of one species will spontaneously give birth to a creature of another species.

Not only that, but we have YouTube even in the remotest corners of the world, and not one of the 8 BILLION humans has ever recorded any of the 8 million species we have alive today speciating over to another species. And again, .. I doubt that ANYONE is even watching for such "absolute proof of biological evolution", mainly speciation, is there an explanation for that? .

Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. We know it happens gradually, over many generations.

 

[Arius]

You appear to have entirely rejected the propositions that,
a. "Species" is a man-made construct not inherent in the creatures themselves
b. Speciation represents a quantitative, rather than qualitative change.
c. That it takes place over many generations.
d. That no offspring is very different from its parent(s),
e. That there is no point during speciation that one may definitively say that a creature of one species has given birth to a creature of another species.

Am I right in assuming that you reject them?

Is this:

a. "Species" is a man-made construct not inherent in the creatures themselves
b. Speciation represents a quantitative, rather than qualitative change.
c. That it takes place over many generations.
d. That no offspring is very different from its parent(s),
e. That there is no point during speciation that one may definitively say that a creature of one species has given birth to a creature of another species.

​

.. your answer to my question to Dawkins "Mr. T" he is pointing at which he calls "Common Ancestor"? If it is, from a scientific standpoint it is a pathetic attempt to avoid a legitimate question.

Listen to what Dawkins is telling this young High School girl (time 3:03 -). So how is this; "Speciation represents a quantitative, rather than qualitative change that it takes place over many generations" in any way, shape or form answer my question ?? LOL

Dawkins just told Miss Parks that we evolved FROM rats, .. it's been 4 billion years, so when will any of those rats speciate into the next completely different species? When do they expect them to change? Where are the cameras on the ones they suspect is about to speciate? You know, the ones they are monitoring with MRI's, DNA tests, Ultrasound, CAT scans, LHC tests etc. that have floated off thousands of miles with the tectonic plate movements from their original families!??

 

[Speedwell]

Is this:

​

.. your answer to my question to Dawkins "Mr. T" he is pointing at which he calls "Common Ancestor"? If it is, from a scientific standpoint it is a pathetic attempt to avoid a legitimate question.

It was not intended to be an answer. In order to frame an answer I would need to know what you thought about those issues.

Dawkins just told Miss Parks that we evolved FROM rats, .. it's been 4 billion years, so when will any of those rats speciate into the next completely different species? When do they expect them to change? Where are the cameras on the ones they suspect is about to speciate? You know, the ones they are monitoring with MRI's, DNA tests, Ultrasound, CAT scans, LHC tests etc. that have floated off thousands of miles with the tectonic plate movements from their original families!??

Do you really suppose that what Dawkins meant was that one day a rat gave birth to a human?

 

[Arius]

No.

No.

Because no one expects it to happen that way. No one expects that a creature of one species will spontaneously give birth to a creature of another species.

Spontaneously??? It's been over 4 billion years, we have 8 million diverse, different living species from the amoeba to man, you call waiting 4 billion years spontaneous? If it happened millions and millions of times for the past 4 billion years, why isn't it happening now? Dawkins specifically told Ms. Parks that the rats are our ancestors. We are on the same tectonic plates, what's keeping them from speciating into another species?

Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. We know it happens gradually, over many generations.

Prove it!?
Show me where one species of animal (don't give me some bacteria that gets immune to penicillin, because they remain bacteria) changes into a completely different animal species. I want to see a gorilla (Dawkins Mr. "T") that Evolutionists are keeping their eye on that they believe is about to speciate?
I'm sure they were hoping for Koko to speciate,

.. they changed her environment, her food, got to watch TV, read children's books, but nyet, nada, nix, she died as a Gorilla. Everything that Evolutionists claim that will force one species to change into another has been done to her, change in diet, environment, tectonic plate movements etc. yet nothing.
I mean we do have ways to tell the difference between one species of animal and another, right? So noticing those final DNA changes shouldn't be so hard should it?

But then, .. another problem arises, even if Koko woke up as a "missing link", a 'humanape' between the two species, she would need a partner, a mate or in a few years she would die along with her entire species, .. since she IS her entire New species.

 

[Arius]

It was not intended to be an answer. In order to frame an answer I would need to know what you thought about those issues.

Do you really suppose that what Dawkins meant was that one day a rat gave birth to a human?

Oh come on, stop stalling or pretending you don't know what I'm talking about.
He said "we evolved from rats, .. that rats are our/human ancestors, so the rats had to go through millions of changes (shades between blue and green, .. remember?) and since the rats we have today have fulfilled every step that Evolutionists claim changes one species into another (environment, food, etc.), why aren't they looking for those about to speciate? At least "look, observe", .. you know, science, .. after all, isn't the definition of the word evolution = science? That's what you guys claim when someone questions evolution, you say they are questioning science! Yet Evolution seems to be built solely on "millions and billions of years ago" fairytale stories, .. no science whatsoever evolved.

In other words, did rats ever change from one species into another over millions and billions of years where they finally ended up as us humans, .. or no?

I can show you thousands of variation of dogs, but they are all dogs. Now evolution says that one day, one of those variety of dogs (or rats, or gorillas etc.) will speciate/change into a completely different species where that one will not be able to mate with ANY of the variety of dogs/rats/gorillas it originated from. So it is THAT particular species that I'm talking about. The "T" that Dawkins is pointing at and calling "Common Ancestor"!?

What species is the "T", he calls "Common Ancestor", .. is it human, gorilla, chicken, beef or pork?
And did it change into another species (male and a female) over night, or did it give birth to a male and female different species than itself over night?

 

[Speedwell]

What species is the "T", he calls "Common Ancestor", .. is it human, gorilla, chicken, beef or pork?

I can't see the picture very well and can't watch embedded videos on this hookup so I don't know what he said, but my understanding is that our common ancestor with the other apes is a species of hominid named Nyanzipithecus alesi.

And did it change into another species (male and a female) over night...

No, it happened gradually over many generations.

...or did it give birth to a male and female different species than itself over night?

Since it is populations which evolve, the population gave birth to both males and females in the usual proportion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And did it change into another species (male and a female) over night, or did it give birth to a male and female different species than itself over night?

That's not how evolution works!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL, so anyone asking questions about this Evolution Religion are dense, idiotic, ignorant trolls who should be ridiculed, correct?

I still want the answer to my question:

Oh come on Evolutionists, show me what species is Pastor Dawkins's Mr. 'T' in this video

(time 0:25) that he calls a "Common Ancestor". What is it, human, ape, a dense troll, .. what?

Here, you guys definitely need some help. Dawkins is pointing to a specific "point" in Spacetime where a creature, or alien, or a she-male either gave birth to a white female Christian housewife and a chimp/bonobo mix, or one night this creature actually split into two, one that white suburban housewife, and the other a chimp!?

And telling me: "evolutionary speciation doesn't work like that" does not answer it. If a species of animal switched to two different species, it had to do it while it was still alive, NOT in the grave. Unless now you guys claim that buried dried up bones of one species can magically change into a completely different species?

I should start a New Thread: "Evolution Religious claims VS Science"

Look it up yourself because I know for a fact that whatever we say or show to you, you're just going to ignore.

 

[Astrophile]

Oh come on Evolutionists, show me what species is Pastor Dawkins's Mr. 'T' in this video



(time 0:25) that he calls a "Common Ancestor". What is it, human, ape, a dense troll, .. what?

The animal is (or, more accurately, was) an ape. It was not a human, but it was not a chimpanzee, a bonobo, or a gorilla either. I don't know what species it belonged to; perhaps we could call it an ardipithecine, after the genus Ardipithecus.

In the video Dawkins is not pointing to a single moment in time or to a single animal, but to a period of tens of thousands of years and to an evolving population of apes that gradually divided into two separate populations. In hindsight, these two populations were the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees respectively, but at the time it would probably have taken a careful observer to notice the differences between them.

 

[Arius]

I can't see the picture very well and can't watch embedded videos on this hookup so I don't know what he said, but my understanding is that our common ancestor with the other apes is a species of hominid named Nyanzipithecus alesi.

Thank you, I understand, hope you will take a look once you get a better hookup.

So what you're saying is that every transitional creature, like between a lizard and a bird, between a short beaked finch and a long beaked finch, between a gorilla and a human, at every "T" is a Nyanzipithecus alesi?

Is this creature an alien from the planet Vulcan or something that comes and possesses earthly creatures, and transforms them from one species into another species? How long does Nyanzipithecus alesi posess the body of the gorilla before the gorilla changes into a human?

No, it happened gradually over many generations. Since it is populations which evolve, the population gave birth to both males and females in the usual proportion.

So tell me what happens to the population that changes from gorilla to human? I want you to answer me as to what happens, does this entire population of gorillas (who been gradually loosing hair over millions and billions of years or whatever) suddenly change overnight into human, or do they all give birth to humans, boys and girls which from then on produce their human populations?

Don't you understand that what Evolutionists are saying, is that an entire population of gorillas that live in the same area, same food source, same sun and moon, same water, air, trees and bushes, same EVERYTHING with the rest of the gorillas, .. where they were all gorillas one day and could mate and reproduce with all the other gorillas, and suddenly they switch to a different species like human, where they can no longer reproduce with their previous population.

Again, they were gorillas one moment, and now they are human. I don't care if it took a trillion years to come to this point, or what caused them to come to this changing point, what I'm asking you is, how did this change happen?
They were gorillas right?
And now they are human, where they can no longer reproduce with their previous self, correct?

Gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, human, human, human, human ...

The other populations decide to remain gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, gorilla, so I am asking about THAT ONE Particular population of gorillas that did change to human, what happened?
a) They magically one day turned into human?
b) the entire population gave birth to humans, and they remained gorillas?

 

[Arius]

Look it up yourself because I know for a fact that whatever we say or show to you, you're just going to ignore.

The population of gorillas had to change into human one way or another, no matter how long it took.

Please tell me HOW this change occurred?

You telling me "it took a long time", .. or "gradually" does not answer how a population of gorillas changed into human now does it?

How about this: "Stop teaching my children that they evolved from gorillas, and stop calling humans animals" it has caused hundreds of millions of innocent lives through discrimination. Or, just speak for yourself!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Don't you understand that what Evolutionists are saying, is that an entire population of gorillas that live in the same area, same food source, same sun and moon, same water, air, trees and bushes, same EVERYTHING with the rest of the gorillas, .. where they were all gorillas one day and could mate and reproduce with all the other gorillas, and suddenly they switch to a different species like human, where they can no longer reproduce with their previous population.

No, I never understood an evolutionist to say that.

But I understood creationists to say that cars could have babies.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Please tell me HOW this change occurred?

Mutations and natural selection.

 

[Ophiolite]

Don't you understand that what Evolutionists are saying, is that an entire population of gorillas that live in the same area, same food source, same sun and moon, same water, air, trees and bushes, same EVERYTHING with the rest of the gorillas, .. where they were all gorillas one day and could mate and reproduce with all the other gorillas, and suddenly they switch to a different species like human, where they can no longer reproduce with their previous population.

Evolutionists are not saying this. Evolutionists have never said this. Evolutionists never will say this. These statements differ so dramatically from what evolutionists actually say that they are irrelevant to any discussion of evolution.

I am willing to spend as much time as necessary to help you understand what is actually being said. All I ask is that you work with me to achieve the necessary understanding. You have every right to reject the theory of evolution, but if you intend to reject it then it makes sense that you understand what you are rejecting. The strawman you have attacked in the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with TOE.

Here is an initial effort to help you reach that understanding.

The example/analogy above are much closer to the concept of evolution than the inaccurate representation you, rightly, attacked. Do you understand how this analogy relates to biology? If not, please detail your concerns and I shall attempt to address them. If you do understand it, what do you consider to be faulty with the idea?

Source of graphic: https://imgur.com/gallery/oAnfA

 

[Arius]

The animal is (or, more accurately, was) an ape. It was not a human, but it was not a chimpanzee, a bonobo, or a gorilla either. I don't know what species it belonged to; perhaps we could call it an ardipithecine, after the genus Ardipithecus.

In the video Dawkins is not pointing to a single moment in time or to a single animal, but to a period of tens of thousands of years and to an evolving population of apes that gradually divided into two separate populations. In hindsight, these two populations were the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees respectively, but at the time it would probably have taken a careful observer to notice the differences between them.

Yes Dawkins IS pointing to a single moment in time, to an animal he calls "Common Ancestor", and I am asking what species was that animal?

Was it human, or gorilla?

So you're saying that the gorilla magically changed into an ape called; Ardipithecus correct? How did this population of gorillas turn into Ardipithecus? Was it overnight, where scientists would check and say: "yep, after careful forensic and DNA (or whatever) examination this entire population is gorilla", and the next moment, after careful examination they would verify that the entire population of gorillas are now no more gorillas, but; "Ardipithecus"?

Now I ask: Did the entire population of gorillas give birth to a bunch of Ardipithecus? Or did they magically turn into Ardipithecus?

My next question would be, "How did the Ardipithecus apes turn into human apes?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evolutionists are not saying this. Evolutionists have never said this. Evolutionists never will say this. These statements differ so dramatically from what evolutionists actually say that they are irrelevant to any discussion of evolution.

I am willing to spend as much time as necessary to help you understand what is actually being said. All I ask is that you work with me to achieve the necessary understanding. You have every right to reject the theory of evolution, but if you intend to reject it then it makes sense that you understand what you are rejecting. The strawman you have attacked in the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with TOE.

Here is an initial effort to help you reach that understanding.

The example/analogy above are much closer to the concept of evolution than the inaccurate representation you, rightly, attacked. Do you understand how this analogy relates to biology? If not, please detail your concerns and I shall attempt to address them. If you do understand it, what do you consider to be faulty with the idea?

Source of graphic: Beautiful Analogy for Evolution

Good illustration.

From a distance it seems like I can find the first letter I would call purple, but when I stare at the spot, it changes, and it is indeed impossible to identify the first purple letter.

 

[Arius]

Mutations and natural selection.

So now it's natural selection that one day decided to turn one species of animal, namely gorilla, into a completely different species, namely human, .. correct?
How, .. was it overnight where the population of gorillas are gorilla one day, and mutate into human the next?
Or did natural selection make this particular gorilla population "mutate" the pregnant female gorillas fetus into a human, .. and they themselves remained gorillas?

Look, I am beginning to believe that you Evolutionists are soo involved in your Religion that you are completely blinded by it. That is what Religion does to people, make them accept their stories on "blind faith". This is why Dawkins asks for Evolutionists to mock and ridicule those who oppose his Religion.

I have been praying for you all, that God would help you open your eyes to see just how messed up this Evolution Religion really is! Not just messed up, but it discriminates against certain races of people, and justifies every kind of evil that man could imagine. Preaching that the human is no longer responsible for "its" actions, because (as Dawkins said) it really has no free will, but its actions (the human animals) come from its environment and its food, like the burrito it ate for breakfast.
And boy, just going by history of this Evolution-Religion alone, man has imagined some terrible evils that cost hundreds of millions of lives!