Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[The Barbarian]

Evolution does happen, but according to design. That's why the lack of transitionals.

Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form.

What do you have?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This was in reply to someone else who said that science doesn't prove anything. Facts would constitute proof, no?

Not necessarily. More often then not, facts merely support a hypothesis/theory/model/what-have-you.

A lie, hmm? How about Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Java man? Archaeoraptor?

Out of those 4, only the first two were actually hoaxes.
And the only reason you know about them being hoaxes, is because scientists exposed it as such.

And the claim that these 2 were "among the most important ones" is actually extremely ignorant.

If anything, these 2 frauds constituted an epic win for the science of evolution. Scientists were skeptical about those from the very beginning, because they didn't fit into everything they thought they knew about biology. Something fishy was going on.
And as it turned out, they were correct. There idd was something fishy: they were hoaxes.

To say that the modern examples of evolution, like whale or horse evolution, stretch credulity would be kind.

You mean like the clear series of fossils where you can literally see the nostrils move from the front of the face in the oldest fossil to the top of the head in the most recent fossils concerning the whale lineage?

There aren't any smoking guns, just a collection of just-so stories that don't come close to proving all life descended from a common ancestor.

1. "just so stories" is the domain of religion. In science, the "stories" are concluded from the evidence. Not imposed upon it, like religions tend to do (in the few instances that religions actually care about evidence).

2. all life sharing common ancestry is a fact of genetics.

The lack of a transitional fossils

I'll point you to those whale lineage skulls again, where you can literally see the nostrils move from the front of the face to the top of the head through the ages.

And that's just one example, off course. There are hundreds of thousands of known fossil, each with their own transitional properties in their respective lineages.

is a continued source of embarrassment to the scientific community which is why they've "moved on" with PE and other explanations to try to cover up the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

The only embarrassment here, is you being yet another creationist who clearly doesn't understand what PE is all about.

The creation speaks for itself:

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.

Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things

Your bible is the claim. I asked for a demonstration of these claims. Not a copy paste of the claims themselves.

If that's true then it is strange then that Stephen Gould said this:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils"

So, in other words, most of our evolutionary understanding is based not on hard evidence but on the imagination of scientists.

Inference, is not the same as imagination.
I'm sorry that you apparantly don't understand the difference.

But ignorance is not an argument against solid science.

Comparative genetics and anatomy demonstrate evidence of a common design, not common ancestry.

No. Evolution predicts a very very specific pattern of distribution of shared traits / genetics, that pattern being a nested hierarchy.

The pattern predicted by evolution, is the opposite of the pattern one would expect from a design process.

And comparative anatomy/genetics exhibits a nested hierarchy.

Exactly as we would expect if evolution is true.
And the opposite of what we would expect if creationism is true.

Without the fossil record to back it up, there is no reason to favor evolutionary theory as an explanation over a Designer, which has much better explanatory power.

Actually, not at all.
Genetics provides an extremely solid case for evolution. Much stronger then ANY fossil could ever do.

You can make every fossil in existance disappear instantly, and the evidence for evolution would be just as overwhelming as ever.

And by no means would it support nonsense designer claims. Unless you wish to claim that this designer went extremely out of his way to make his design look, feel and smell like the result of a natural evolutionary process.

Change within kinds, not between them.

This is where you define what a "kind" is.

That isn't what I meant. Not a dog giving birth to an aardvark, but seeing animals transitioning between different kinds today. Seeing the inbetween forms, you know..the transitions?

Give an example. Because I have no clue what you mean by "kind".

According to PE it can happen fairly rapidly, but it isn't happening at all.

PE is about "rapidly" changing environments and how it affects selection pressures.
I use quotes around "rapidly" because we are talking about speed in terms of geological time. We are still talking hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years for these processes to unfold

One part of the theory is right which is that everything is in stasis and doesn't change;

That is a demonstrably false claim, as we observe changes and the effects of natural selection every single day. If your claim was correct, then we wouldn't have a SINGLE example of speciation.

amazing how evolutionists overlook that as positive evidence for creation.

Amazing in what kind of willfull ignorance and mental gymnastics creationists must bath, in order to stick to their faith-based beliefs.

It's when I was extremely ignorant of the theory that I believed it.

If you demonstrated anything in this conversation, it most certainly is that you have no understanding of evolution. At all.

It is clear that you have no understanding of any of the following:
- PE
- what a "transitional" really is
- the importance of the pattern of nested hierarchy observed in genetics, anatomy, etc.
- how evolution is a gradual process that produces branches of lineages
-...

Evolution from a common ancestor is the secular creation myth.

Then why do most christians have no problem with it?

You believe it because it explains the world to you without God

Why does the Pope believe it? Or Ken Miller and Francis Collins, both well known evo-biologists and also devout christians?

Yet, even if it were true it doesn't explain how life got here in the first place.

Neither is it supposed to.
Evolution explains the process that existing life is subject to.

You fill in the gaps of your knowledge with evolution

No. I have no problems with saying "i don't know" when I don't know.
Unlike some, I'm not allergic to those words.

You say it must have been evolution, and that is your faith.

Nope.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're also wrong about creationism being believed by a minority of believers. Over 1/3 of the country believes in creationism:

In which universe is 1/3 not a minority?

 

[Jimmy D]

In which universe is 1/3 not a minority?

Good grief, that figure isn't accurate is it?

 

[Speedwell]

Good grief, that figure isn't accurate is it?

More or less--and no coincidence that it's about the same size as the Trump base. The good news is that outside the US (outside of the Old South, for that matter) the percentage is miniscule.

 

[thesunisout]

In which universe is 1/3 not a minority?

That's 33 percent of Americans, not just believers. It may be the majority view among believers since 24 percent of Americans believe in evolution guided by a supreme being.

 

[thesunisout]

Out of those 4, only the first two were actually hoaxes.

They're all hoaxes. Archaeoraptor: Archaeoraptor - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
I'm not sure how you can say Java man wasn't a hoax. How do you think the scientist forgot to mention he found two human skulls and a level in the same area?

Did you know about those facts when you posted this?

If anything, these 2 frauds constituted an epic win for the science of evolution

Yes they were an epic win for the scientific community because they convinced a generation of people what was false because of the insistence of the scientific community that they were legitimate. Just as they are doing today.

You mean like the clear series of fossils where you can literally see the nostrils move from the front of the face in the oldest fossil to the top of the head in the most recent fossils concerning the whale lineage?

Do you mean in illustrations? The reconstructions displayed in museums? Because its not in the fossil evidence. In Ambulocetus, for example, there is no fossil evidence of a blow hole. In every point that is claimed, like the ear bone, it is dissimilar to a whale. It is the same with Rodhocetus. It is depicted in articles with tail and flipper bones but none were actually discovered. It's a leap of faith, and nonsense.

This is what you find out when you investigate the actual evidence for evolution; it is mostly in mans imagination. The illustrations and museum pieces that you have seen don't match up to the fossil evidence.

1. "just so stories" is the domain of religion. In science, the "stories" are concluded from the evidence. Not imposed upon it, like religions tend to do (in the few instances that religions actually care about evidence).

The conclusions are based on things assumed apriori which is where the storytelling comes in. The evolutionists fill in the gaps with evolution, taking giant leaps with the evidence they find because they never question evolution. They see evolution everywhere they look and always assume it must have happened so they feel comfortable adding a tail and flippers to an illustration because they are so sure that evolution occurred.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is not based on a just so story, but on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. all life sharing common ancestry is a fact of genetics.

By fact, you mean its not proven right?

I'll point you to those whale lineage skulls again, where you can literally see the nostrils move from the front of the face to the top of the head through the ages.

Yeah you can literally see them move through the imagination of scientists.

And that's just one example, off course. There are hundreds of thousands of known fossil, each with their own transitional properties in their respective lineages.

I noticed you didn't mention horse evolution, which has fallen out of favor because there is clearly nothing there. There isn't a smoking gun or you would have brought it up already.

The only embarrassment here, is you being yet another creationist who clearly doesn't understand what PE is all about.

It was out of the authors own mouth that transitional fossils barely exist. Yet you seem to disagree by arguing they are plentiful. In any case PE explains that curious problem by saying evolution happened too quickly for the evidence to show up. It isn't really difficult to understand.

Your bible is the claim. I asked for a demonstration of these claims. Not a copy paste of the claims themselves.

Did you read what I quoted? You don't understand how that answers your objection?

Inference, is not the same as imagination.
I'm sorry that you apparantly don't understand the difference.

I know there is a difference, but I don't give them the credit for inference since they have stepped far beyond inference and into imagination time and time again

No. Evolution predicts a very very specific pattern of distribution of shared traits / genetics, that pattern being a nested hierarchy.

The pattern predicted by evolution, is the opposite of the pattern one would expect from a design process.

And comparative anatomy/genetics exhibits a nested hierarchy.

Exactly as we would expect if evolution is true.
And the opposite of what we would expect if creationism is true.

And by no means would it support nonsense designer claims. Unless you wish to claim that this designer went extremely out of his way to make his design look, feel and smell like the result of a natural evolutionary process.

I'm sure that's what you've read on the internet, but evolution does not necessarily predict nested hierarchies. Natural selection doesn't predict it. It can fit within the evolutionary framework but it isn't necessarily implied by it.

Also, how can you say it is the opposite of what we would expect if creationism was true? How would you know what God would design or why? Since it is not necessarily predicted by evolution, you can't claim that.

This is where you define what a "kind" is.

Give an example. Because I have no clue what you mean by "kind".

This explains it better than I could:

What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

PE is about "rapidly" changing environments and how it affects selection pressures.
I use quotes around "rapidly" because we are talking about speed in terms of geological time. We are still talking hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years for these processes to unfold

We see no evidence today in living species that any of this is taking place, and we should if it were.

That is a demonstrably false claim, as we observe changes and the effects of natural selection every single day. If your claim was correct, then we wouldn't have a SINGLE example of speciation.

I didn't mean didn't change at all, but changing very little.

Amazing in what kind of willfull ignorance and mental gymnastics creationists must bath, in order to stick to their faith-based beliefs.


If you demonstrated anything in this conversation, it most certainly is that you have no understanding of evolution. At all.

It is clear that you have no understanding of any of the following:
- PE
- what a "transitional" really is
- the importance of the pattern of nested hierarchy observed in genetics, anatomy, etc.
- how evolution is a gradual process that produces branches of lineages
-...

It's amazing that you think ad homs are a good substitute for reasoned discourse.

Then why do most christians have no problem with it?

I believe after seeing the pew research poll that the majority believe in creationism. And if everyone else walked off of a cliff it doesn't mean I have to.

Why does the Pope believe it? Or Ken Miller and Francis Collins, both well known evo-biologists and also devout christians?

Appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy

Neither is it supposed to.
Evolution explains the process that existing life is subject to. No. I have no problems with saying "i don't know" when I don't know.
Unlike some, I'm not allergic to those words.

What do you think happened?

 

[Speedwell]

That's 33 percent of Americans, not just believers. It may be the majority view among believers since 24 percent of Americans believe in evolution guided by a supreme being.

Just believing God somehow guided evolution won't make it. You have to believe that creation happened during a single week in 4004 BC, that the South should have won the civil war but somehow got cheated out of it and that you have to vote Republican or go to hell. Sunisout is about right: it runs about 1/4 to 1/3 of the population, depending on who and how you ask.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution does happen, but according to design. That's why the lack of transitionals.

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form.

What do you have?

(silence)

You're not alone. No one else has been able to find one so far. Isn't that an important clue?

 

[Arius]

What this juvenile comment supposed to be making some point?

Yes sir, I was making a point. The point is like of your two fossils, .. that if I shown you a 1920 Ford Model T coupe
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/125467539599104264/

and a 2017 Ford Mustang coupe
Ford debuts new 2015 Mustang

the only scientifically verifiable fact would be the two cars. But their "evolution story" behind it could be very different. Yes, I can say the car did evolve, and if you want to argue about it, yes, they evolved "naturally", .. just as Evolutionists claim monkeys evolved to humans.
Look, if you believe in Evolution (vs I.D. God) then how could the car NOT have evolved naturally?

Did your ape-man build a fire naturally, or did God through I.D. create them to know how to make fire and how to use it?

From amoeba to monkey, and man living right along with the monkey, it's been 4.2 billion Carl Sagan years, correct? Yet no other animal except the man-ape is building fire and knows what to use it for, .. 4.2 billion years to the second. Same environment, same tectonic plate movements, same food, same sun, same rain, same imaginary meteor showers, yet look at the difference between us, what happened to the apes?!? What caused the same amoeba to evolve the two so different? I won't even mention the millions of other species surrounding the apes and man, .. same everything, yet one turns into a butterfly?? How does Mother Nature explain the "survival of the fittest" for a butterfly, .. huh? Yet here they flutter around just like the crocodiles. Matter of fact I seen one land on the head of a crocodile, and laugh, because their cousins the Dinosaurs died out, but the butterflies survived, .. lol.

I can show you using your BB-Evolution ideology that the Ford car DID evolve naturally through natural selection (similar to how; what the monkey ate, and how its environment changed it to a human), tectonic plate movements (Ford vs Japanese cars) and build on this to show you the natural evolution of the car. And yes, even down to the "genetic composition", by showing you that both a cremated human remains is no different than a rusted to dust old car: "From dust/dirt thou art, to dust you shall return" .. which goes for everything made of dirt, including plastic, glass and steel.

The true idea behind the teaching of evolution is summed up here:

Oh, and I won't report you, but I don't appreciate your above comment: "What this juvenile comment, supposed to be making some point?..." If you don't understand, maybe it's because of you're upbringing, your Religious indoctrinations, so don't try to make others look bad, or dumb because of it, .. OK?
Thanks, and God bless you.

Well, it's easy, really...
The trick is, to not allow your emotions or a priori faith-based beliefs to dictate how reality actually works. And to instead, simply go by what the evidence demonstrates.

What, are you serious: "not to allow my emotions or a priori faith-based beliefs to dictate how reality actually works" ?? Look how you started your response to me?
"And to instead, simply go by what the evidence demonstrates", .. you mean what Religious Indoctrination demonstrates, here, let me explain:
Dawkins points to a branching T, (time 0:22)

where the 'T' goes off to the left to chimps and bonobos, and to the right to the white, Christian suburban housewife.
This is all within the 4.2 billion years of evolution, which is still ticking, correct?
Now let's go to that 'point' in time:

Q. The animal at that moment in time that Dawkins is pointing to, is it an ape or a human that is giving birth, twins one is a "white Christian suburban housewife" and the other a chimp/bonobos?

OR

Is the animal at that moment in time Dawkins is pointing to "splits, and morphs" into two creatures, one a "female" human, and the other a male chimp? Simple and direct question, .. which if Dawkins-Evolution was even remotely a true "scientific theory", with 8 million known species, and all the scientists in the world of 7 billion people, all the cameras and billions of dollars in equipment would be easily shown happening daily. You know, .. "speciation", .. that miraculous moment when "one species turns into a completely different species"!

You can't just say: "It happens!", and claim it "science". Or that: "It happens over millions and billions of years", because even alligators don't live that long. There has to be a "moment in time" when one "LIVING" species (not fossils) either gives birth to twins, OR like I said: "splits in two and morphs into two different species".

I don't mean all the species, we can leave the rest to be rats, or gorillas if you wish. What I want to know is that ONE creature that does the 'T', .. the split into two separate species!?

And that gets us to the reality of evolution, where all living things are related and it's a harsh reality indeed. It's a cruel reality where the suffering of one creature is required for the feeding of another. Where a lion runs exactly fast enough in order to catch the antilope that is just a tiny bit slower then his/her peers.

That shows Intelligent Design, because if that was evolution, which you guys say is about 'survival', then why would an amoeba waist 4 billion years, to become an antelope/food?
How long has the antelope watched its offspring, it's parents, cousins being eaten alive? Hellooo, same 4 billion years, on the same tectonic plate, same food supply, so either learn to build and use fire, or grow antlers that shoot out of your skull, but all that time to be in constant fear of being eaten alive???

Indeed, it does not reflect some kind of reality where after you die, you get to spend eternity in candy land playing bingo with your long deceased grand mother.

I told you I'm not associated with the Christian Religion, so I don't see either God, or the reason for our existence the same way as they, or how you, theist/atheist do.

You might not like that, but the universe isn't here for you to like it.

Ah yes, the old "earth is just an insignificant speck in the cold dark vacuum that's expanding in nothing, caused by a deadly explosion that's expanding past infinity, just waiting for the Big-Crunch, or a 'black hole' to swallow us up, or that next giant meteor that will hit your tiny planet earth and create another moon" frightening stories. But all is well because we are evolving rats, animals, so we should just stop with the emotions, forget any idea of morality, or God as Creator, "and turn, or submit to the Dark-Side of the force E=MC^2", .. right?

We are distant cousins of all living things.
Including banana trees.

Sure we are, .. just show me one, .. just ONE "transitioning animal" (or banana tree). 8 million to choose from, surely at least one of the 7.8 million scientists in the world have their cameras on at least ONE animal ready to make that change, right?
What, .. no?
Not ONE scientist has detected a species that's ready to "transition" and keeping a bunch of cameras on it? Instead, they spend billions of our hard earned tax dollars a month on CGI and artist rendered images of Star Wars planets like Tatooine, and make cartoons of it to sell to the sheeple .. now why is that?

Regardless of your emotional objections.

Now that's funny, since both NASA and 666CERN thrives on emotion starting with the movies they put out before the fake events.

Now read the comments, one is: "I still tear up watching this"
or this one: "3 years later now and I still get tears watching this! Simply amazing engineering! These guys and gals rock!"

"Work on their emotions" is their moto, movies, CGI games, and even the landing, "Live from New York!" umm, .. I mean "Live from Mars!" "Yepeee, huraaay, yip, yip whoo hoo!"

God bless you, and you are in my prayers.

 

[Arius]

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form.

What do you have?

(silence)

You're not alone. No one else has been able to find one so far. Isn't that an important clue?

Yes, the Creator made all the animals after their kind, that could survive in all environments, they did NOT evolve to survive. That would be evolution to death, not to survival. No species survive by dying out, .. that is silly!

we have 8 million species, surely the millions of scientists have a bunch of cameras on a few possible transitions, right? You know, where one species turns into a completely different species, not just "look alike", with one short beaked and the other long. God made sure that each species will survive so they don't all eat the same seeds, from the same spot, .. but man has been wiping out species since after the fall.

So where is, out of 8 million living species, that ONE species that the cameras are on, .. that Evolutionary scientists just know is about to change into another species?
If they transitioned, they HAD TO transition while they were alive, unless you think that they transitioned after they turned into fossils? Is that what Evolutionists believe, and why they use "fossils" as "proof of evolution"??

Show us that Evolutionists are even watching for a possible transitioning species, .. but you can't. You know why?
Because Evolutionists know they are just pulling on peoples legs, that they don't believe in evolution themselves, and my request is proof of that: "No one is watching for a possible transitioning species", because it NEVER happened and will never happen, and they KNOW IT!

Oh yeah, the bacteria that become immune to penicillin (anti biotic), right? Only problem is that they remain bacteria. Moth remain moth, dogs, horses, pigeons, .. they all remain "after their own kind".

God loves variety, just look at the trees, their leafs, snow flakes, people, animals. all different. Even the ones that are very similar like the wildebeest, where a million migrate, yet the lost infant will find its mama. Or like the penguins, have you seen the "March of the Penguins", how they find each other after a long absence? That was all planned out, not no accidental mutation, there is no evidence of trial and error in nature. It all goes exactly as God planned it to go, except for man, who has been given free will in the "image of his Creator". So to prove evolution, they are turning boys into girls and girls into boys, please look up "Trans humanism", and also trying desperately to genetically mix animals with humans, .. to prove Evolution even if it takes them Intelligent Design to do it.

 

[The Barbarian]

(claim that transitional forms don't exist)

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form.

What do you have?

(another creationist fails to show even one)

No one else seems to be able to to find one, either.

 

[doubtingmerle]

we have 8 million species, surely the millions of scientists have a bunch of cameras on a few possible transitions, right? You know, where one species turns into a completely different species, not just "look alike", with one short beaked and the other long. God made sure that each species will survive so they don't all eat the same seeds, from the same spot, .. but man has been wiping out species since after the fall.

So where is, out of 8 million living species, that ONE species that the cameras are on, .. that Evolutionary scientists just know is about to change into another species?
If they transitioned, they HAD TO transition while they were alive, unless you think that they transitioned after they turned into fossils? Is that what Evolutionists believe, and why they use "fossils" as "proof of evolution"??

Show us that Evolutionists are even watching for a possible transitioning species, .. but you can't. You know why?
Because Evolutionists know they are just pulling on peoples legs, that they don't believe in evolution themselves, and my request is proof of that: "No one is watching for a possible transitioning species", because it NEVER happened and will never happen, and they KNOW IT!

Oh yeah, the bacteria that become immune to penicillin (anti biotic), right? Only problem is that they remain bacteria. Moth remain moth, dogs, horses, pigeons, .. they all remain "after their own kind".

God loves variety, just look at the trees, their leafs, snow flakes, people, animals. all different. Even the ones that are very similar like the wildebeest, where a million migrate, yet the lost infant will find its mama. Or like the penguins, have you seen the "March of the Penguins", how they find each other after a long absence? That was all planned out, not no accidental mutation, there is no evidence of trial and error in nature. It all goes exactly as God planned it to go, except for man, who has been given free will in the "image of his Creator". So to prove evolution, they are turning boys into girls and girls into boys, please look up "Trans humanism", and also trying desperately to genetically mix animals with humans, .. to prove Evolution even if it takes them Intelligent Design to do it.

Nobody is hoping to find a picture of a donkey giving birth to a zebra or anything like that. Evolution takes time. But the fossil record shows us that, over millions of years, an eohippus can evolve into a horse, zebra and donkey.

How do you explain all of those transtionals that we have found between Eohippus and zebra?

 

[Arius]

(claim that transitional forms don't exist)

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form.

What do you have?

(another creationist fails to show even one)

No one else seems to be able to to find one, either.

Right, .. here is one of Evolutionist "Transitional forms":

How could any "Creationist" compete with that, .. right?
Only problem here is that this shows the reverse of what Evolutionists claim, that man evolved from monkeys. What this shows is man (who he was just a few months before they brought him to the U.S.) that turned into a monkey at the New York Zoo.

God bless you @The Barbarian

 

[Arius]

Nobody is hoping to find a picture of a donkey giving birth to a zebra or anything like that. Evolution takes time.

Hello @doubtingmerle I understand that your 'Evolution' idea takes time, but in the 4 billion years of amoeba evolving, there had to be a "moment in time" where a monkey/ape turned into, or gave birth to a human.
You know, where we with our archeological background in forensics, using our MRI's and DNA testing could catch a living 'ape' that's just about to turn into a human, no?

Again, .. there had to be a living, breathing ape that one day either turned into a human, or gave birth to a human, even if this process took a trillion years to get to that 'moment'. You can't just take some bones of a human, and a handful of bones of an ape and say that; this pile of ape-bones here, turned into that pile of human bones there, .. and how these bones actually looked with flesh on them "just look at my drawings, .. see"!?

But the fossil record shows us that, over millions of years, an eohippus can evolve into a horse, zebra and donkey.

How do you explain all of those transtionals that we have found between Eohippus and zebra?

They called Eohippus a "hippo horse", so it was bones of a horse already, the rest is wishful thinking or even religious delusions. I'm not that good of an artist, but give me a few bones (even a few pieces of jaw bones of a pig) and I can draw you a transitional between just about any two creatures you ask for!? I could even draw you a butterfly with that pigs jaw bone, and since the body been decomposed for the past millions, billions and trillions of years, all we have now is my drawing. And I could have a senior member of my Evolution Religion, like pastor Richard Dawkins to verify this to be so!

Look, it's been 4.2 Billion of your Evolution years since the first amoeba popped out of the primordial soup (muddy salt water), there would be thousands of species speciating every day, and keeping a few thousand cameras on "potential animals" would not be hard, since we know that if they're going to speciate, it has to be in this here and now short lifespan, not after they turn to bones.

Actually, you should be able to use those millions of "transitional fossils" to pinpoint which animal is about to speciate. You don't need to keep the camera on them for millions of years, .. keep the cameras on a few hundred Mallard ducks, their lifespan is only 10 years max! If one turns into a crocodile, or lays eggs that has a crocodile inside, you'll have undeniable proof of evolution! The first live video of speciation resulting in a crock-a-duck!

 

[DogmaHunter]

They're all hoaxes. Archaeoraptor: Archaeoraptor - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Right. I confused it with Archaeopteryx I think.

I'm not sure how you can say Java man wasn't a hoax.

It's basicaly a homo erectus.

Yes they were an epic win for the scientific community because they convinced a generation of people what was false because of the insistence of the scientific community that they were legitimate. Just as they are doing today.

No. It was an epic win because here was this "fossil" that did not fit with the current knowledge of evolutionary history. And as it turns out, it was a fake as shown by scientists themselves.

It's not quite clear to me how the fact that scientists themselves expose these things, fits into your conspiratory idea that science is in the business of faking evidence to lie to the public. I also question what the motive of doing such a thing could possibly be.

It's not like anybody gains by engaging in bad/false science........

Do you mean in illustrations?

No, I mean actually fossilised skulls.

The conclusions are based on things assumed apriori which is where the storytelling comes in.

Again, no.
That's what religions do. They have a priori beliefs and then impose those beliefs on reality.
Science does the opposite.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is not based on a just so story, but on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Which is a just so story.

By fact, you mean its not proven right?

By fact, I mean that that is what the data shows / suggests / is consistent with and that there is no data known that contradicts it.
Just like all other facts.

Common ancestry of species is as much a genetic fact as paternal biological relationships concluded from DNA testing.

Yeah you can literally see them move through the imagination of scientists.

Nope. On actual skulls.

It was out of the authors own mouth that transitional fossils barely exist. Yet you seem to disagree by arguing they are plentiful. In any case PE explains that curious problem by saying evolution happened too quickly for the evidence to show up. It isn't really difficult to understand.

In the great scheme of things. Fossils are plentyfull overall. There aren't, in absolute numbers, "less" fossils from any given period. In periods of rapid change, you will have less big transitionals as a result.

Off course the term "transitional" is oft misunderstood by creationists. There are degrees there. In essence, every fossil, every individual, is transitional between its parents and its off spring.

Did you read what I quoted? You don't understand how that answers your objection?

I don't care what a book says, especially religious books. What matter is what reality is about and what books say is only relevant insofar as it relates to reality.
And if it relates to reality, you could just stick to reality and not even mention the book.

Claims are a dime a dozen.

I know there is a difference, but I don't give them the credit for inference since they have stepped far beyond inference and into imagination time and time again

I'm sorry to inform you, but you as a non-biologist are in no position to decide what actual biologists get to have credit for and what not.
Unlike what you seem to believe, you do not know better then them concerning their fields of expertise.

I'm sure that's what you've read on the internet, but evolution does not necessarily predict nested hierarchies.

No. It's simply how an evolutionary process works. When you have a population that reproduces with variation and is subsequently subjected to a fitness test for survival and further succesfull reproduction, with various habitats with other selection pressures which in turn results in branching speciation events.... then a nested hierarchy is the only possible outcome.

Natural selection doesn't predict it.

The nature of the evolutionary process does: inheritability of traits, reproduction and divergent speciation.

It can fit within the evolutionary framework but it isn't necessarily implied by it.

It is. ps: again further evidence that you don't really have a clue on how evolution works.

Also, how can you say it is the opposite of what we would expect if creationism was true?

Because an engineer would have to go completely out of his way to create a bunch of products that would fit such a patter. It's also extremely inefficient and wastefull to create your products that way.

And we have millions of examples of created productlines in this world. Not a single one falls into a nested hierarchy. Not even within the same manufacturer. Not even within the same brand from a single manufacturer. Not even within the same model line of a single brand of a single manufacturer.

Because it is ineficient, wastefull and just plain stupid to do so.

How would you know what God would design or why?

I don't. You don't either.
But I can make an educated guess.

I'm sure an all-powerfull being could create a bunch of creatures using such a pattern. But then one would have to ask the question why such a being would do so and actively try to deceive all of us into thinking that it all evolved naturally instead.

It just makes no sense.
It's not what we expect from created products. But it is exactly what we expect from evolved ones, if the evolving process follows the principles of biological evolution.

So, this here is the situation:
- in creation, nested hierarchies is the last pattern we would expect
- in evolution, nested hierarchies is the only pattern that would be possible
- in reality, we don't find any evidence of supernatural or plain unnatural ingredients / factors / what-have-you in biological development
- literally everything in biology fits the evolutionary framework.

Considering these simple facts, it's mindblowing why one would then still go with the "god-dun-it".

Since it is not necessarily predicted by evolution, you can't claim that.

It is necessarily predicted by evolution.

Consider your family tree. That is a nested hierarchy. That hierarchy is reflected in your collective DNA. We can test that tree.

By saying that this pattern isn't predicted by evolution, you're essentially saying that while you are the biological child of person A and B, you could have the DNA of person X and Y.

You're not making any sense.
If you are the child of A and B, you'll have the DNA of A and B (+ a few unique mutations that are your own).

This explains it better than I could:
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

I asked for an example. Got any?

As for your link, it is not explanatory at all. In fact, it just mentions the same vagueness, that you actually just denied (cfr the dog and aardvark thingy). Consider this quote:

A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind.

And it's still completely unclear what a "kind" is.
The article also completely fails to realise that if they are going to define a "kind" as two creatures that can reproduce.... then things DO change kinds.

Because we have OBSERVED species diverge to the point where they NO LONGER can reproduce.

We see no evidence today in living species that any of this is taking place, and we should if it were.

We should observer processes that take hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years to unfold? Are you joking?

I didn't mean didn't change at all, but changing very little.

But that's exactly what you said... here, I'll quote it again with a bit of emphasis to remind you:

One part of the theory is right which is that everything is in stasis and doesn't change

But okay, I guess you're retracting that and are changing it to "changing very little".
Do you realise that that is exactly how evolution works? By the accumulation of MICRO CHANGES?

It's amazing that you think ad homs are a good substitute for reasoned discourse.

It is not an ad hom to point out ill-understanding of the subject matter.

I believe after seeing the pew research poll that the majority believe in creationism.

What poll?

Appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy

An appeal to authority is saying that something is correct because authority X believes it. That's not what I did.

I merely asked you why you think plenty of devout christians, which includes the pope, have no problems with evolution theory. And I asked that question in context of your claim that I believe evolution because "it explains the world without god".

If that is why I (apparantly) accept evolution, then what reasons do the pope, and plenty of other christians have to accept evolution?

What do you think happened?

I just told you that I don't know.
Which of those words don't you understand?

 

[doubtingmerle]

keep the cameras on a few hundred Mallard ducks, their lifespan is only 10 years max! If one turns into a crocodile, or lays eggs that has a crocodile inside, you'll have undeniable proof of evolution! The first live video of speciation resulting in a crock-a-duck!

No that would not be proof of evolution. That would be proof of a creator creating a crocodile and using a duck as a surrogate mother.

Now if after many millions of years you saw duck babies gradually grow stronger jaws and more protective skin until they had some resemblance to crocodiles, that would be proof of evolution.

And it turns out that this sort of incremental transition through time is exactly what the fossil record shows.

And regarding your rant about apes and humans, it turns out we have hundreds of intermediates leading to humans. See Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

 

[The Barbarian]

Right, .. here is one of Evolutionist "Transitional forms":

OK. So you want to see something transitional between humans and other apes. BTW, evolutionary theory does not say humans evolved from monkeys, nor did it suggest that black people are more like apes than other people. Chimps, after all, have a lot of straight body hair, thin lips, relatively short legs, and light skins. In reality, Europeans are more like chimps than Africans are.

But back to your challenge. Australopithecines are nicely transitional between chimpanzees and humans, having the chimpanzee jaw and face (but not as prognathous as those of other apes), curved digits (but not as curved as those of other apes) human-like hips (but more apelike-like than those of modern humans) feet with a large, straight big toe (but not quite as large and straight as ours), and a cranium larger than that of other apes of the same size, but not as large as ours.

That was easy. Do you want to try again?

 

[pitabread]

Hello @doubtingmerle I understand that your 'Evolution' idea takes time, but in the 4 billion years of amoeba evolving, there had to be a "moment in time" where a monkey/ape turned into, or gave birth to a human.

On a generation-to-generation basis, the line will be too fuzzy to definitively define one species from the next.

It's like looking at a gradient and trying to point to the specific pixel where green turns into blue:

 

[Arius]

No that would not be proof of evolution. That would be proof of a creator creating a crocodile and using a duck as a surrogate mother.

OK, so you don't believe in evolution either, right? You know, like that man evolved from apes BS!?

Now if after many millions of years you saw duck babies gradually grow stronger jaws and more protective skin until they had some resemblance to crocodiles, that would be proof of evolution.

Let's be scientific about this, and I mean the science that searches for the truth in things. And far as I know (you can prove me wrong) not ONE scientist (other than maybe Dawkins) has EVER observed over "millions of years duck babies gradually grow stronger jaws and more protective skin until they had some resemblance to crocodiles, .. or observed short beaked finches evolve longer ones", none, .. zilch, .. nix, .. nada! So like I said, lets be realistic about your "scientific claims", OK?

And it turns out that this sort of incremental transition through time is exactly what the fossil record shows.

Again you are suggesting that fossils speciated over millions and billions of years, .. and I say "I don't believe you", .. unless you can show me that one fossilized species of animal could evolve into completely different fossilized species!? .. YouTube video would be great, but not cartoons.

But here is what we DO observe in science (which is observing the world around us in the here and now):

Scientific observation: "For example, the cactus finch has a long beak that reaches into blossoms, the ground finch has a short beak (* _____) for eating seeds buried under the soil, and the tree finch has a parrot-shaped beak suited for stripping bark to find insects."

* Here is where we can put either the word adapted, or created, but since no Evolutionist scientist alive could claim to have observed finches evolve short, or long beaks over millions and billions of years, .. nor have I seen my Creator create these birds, we'll just leave that blank.
The Bible does say that God created all the animals after their own kind, which by observation we can see that there are short and long beaked birds for specific purpose and reasons as noted above, .. and anyone can verify this from observation (science).

And regarding your rant about apes and humans, it turns out we have hundreds of intermediates leading to humans. See Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

Yes, again you refer to fossils, when I asked you for evidence for scientific observation of an ape turning into a human, and you keep pointing to fossils.
With 6 billion people on earth, and with all the deformities we get from chem-trailing and poisoning of our waters, I too could show you not fossils, but living humans, starting with one who cannot speak but only grunt, .. walk on all fours, .. and look just like an ape (including being very hairy) holding a real baby ape.
From there, I could line up other living humans that show a change all the way to a white German gentleman with blue eyes working on a computer, .. just like you guys do with fossils.

And between each living human, I can make up long winded; "Once upon a time long, long time ago" fairytale stories of how this one through natural selection evolved into that one, but like the Ota Benga incident, I would never do that because that would be very insulting, discriminating, even inhuman just as the story of Ota Benga was.

Again, are you saying that you believe that these fossils that have been buried in the ground for your millions and billions of years speciated from one species into another? If so, .. sorry but I don't believe you. Fossilized bones don't evolve, and like you admitted, you cannot show me living creatures speciating from one species into a completely different species.
Actually, no Evolutionary scientist is even looking for one species evolving/speciating into another, which is what I've been asking for? Why is that?

Because they know with 100% certainty that no such thing could, or has ever happened. If they even remotely believed that, with all the technology today, where they can monitor our brain waves and predict what we think and dream, and with the ability to monitor the DNA of transitioning species, .. this should be a synch!
Yet, .. no such observation even exists.