Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Arius]

Could you please answer my questions without the snarkiness, please?

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

Because I heard, and read Professor Richard Dawkins (and other Evolutionists, including fellow debaters) say that: "No species of ANY kind has ever evolved/speciated into a completely different species in its lifetime! That is why we still have gorillas, because evolution/speciation of one species into a complete different species never happens" .. and poor Darwin believed that gorillas evolved/speciated into humans.

Why, what qualifications does someone need to point out such obvious contradictions claimed as science!? I just point out what's being said, what qualifications do I need for that?

 

[Arius]

No, I didn't say that at all, are you creating a deliberate strawman or do you really not understand what I said?

"We have plenty of examples of hominid fossils although none of these are claimed to be our direct descendants....

....These are creatures that show intermediate morphology between humans and chimps."

If you can't understand what that means there is little point in continuing. The rest of your post is an embarrassing mix of hand waving and ignorance so I'm reluctant to pick it apart.

Hand waving? LOL look who's doing all the hand waving?

Here again: Time 0:21

Dawkins points to a 'T' which he calls a "Common Ancestor"
What species is that "Common Ancestor"?

Look, it gets tiring hearing atheist-Evolutionist calling me ignorant, an evolving ape, an animal, and refer to my ancestors as rats!?
So unless you have a legitimate, sensible scientific evidence to call me these names, I suggest you stop doing it, .. please, .. it really makes you look bad, like those that committed the "Ota Benga" and the "Aborigines" horrific crimes, not to mention the Holocaust. It certainly revealed just what lengths the grave robbing, skull & bones worshipping atheists will go to, to defend their dark-Religious beliefs.

Data is available on each of those skulls - and the rest of the fossil skeletons we have "dug up", don't mistake the fact that you know absolutely nothing about them that the rest of us don't.

And those adult specimins died from birth defects? Really?

Dawkins is not saying that we evolved from gorillas and I'm not saying we evolved from chimps, where do you get this garbage?

That's true, he is NOT saying we evolved from gorillas, but what he IS saying is that we evolved from an animal he calls; "Common Ancestor", and since this animal is a line on a graph leading to a gorilla, I asked you guys: "What species IS that animal marked only as a 'T' that Dawkins keeps calling a 'Common Ancestor'"?

Besides, you were showing me a bunch of different chimp sculls, so I asked if you were suggesting that you believe you evolved from chimps or not?
Why were you showing me a bunch of chimp skulls then, .. relatives of yours?

What makes you say that the fossil record only contains "deformed and died of disease bone fragments".
Have you ever read any scientific papers on Australopithecus Africanus fossils? Do you know why they display intermediate morphology between humans and chimps?
Funny that isn't it? You obviously can't decide which it is. You've just admitted that it displays features of both, well done, you've identified your first transitional fossil!

Yes, I know all about your 'transitional fossils':

By bone fragment do you mean skeleton? And it seems that you underestimate the techniques and methods of modern paleontology. Displaying your ignorance on a topic isn't really helping your "arguments".

Oh no, I don't underestimate the Religion that is causing the greatest harm to humanity, physically (as I keep pointing it out), .. mentally and spiritually!

You know it's not about my ignorance you are upset over, but the fact that I pointed out the long history of crimes against humanity that this atheistic Evolution Religion has been committing, .. all the while admitting that Evolution never happens.

[auote]"Taung Child" isn't an example of Homo Habilis, where are you getting this crap from? How can you expect any one to take your opinion seriously if you can't even get these simple things right?[/quote]

Read it, .. everyone disagrees on every skull. Should let the dead rest in peace. But I guess this infatuation with skulls and bones dug up from graves reveals just what this Religion is founded on.

That's the point, the are neither modern human or modern chimp - they display morphology common to both in varying degrees - transitionals if you will.

So because most normal people will no longer tolerate comparing darker skinned humans to gorillas and chimps, you use skulls. Oh, and it's "Transitional skulls" right? It didn't evolve during its lifetime, but in the grave, we get it.

You're asking for a common ancestor but it doesn't sound like you even know what that means. And no I won't "say the common ancestor is chimp" because it would be idiotic, if you were asking for the common ancestor of Chimps and humans you might have a valid question.

Calling me; .. idiotic, dumb, stupid, ignorant, .. are you making the devil horn sign with your fingers as you're typing these words? Do you regularly visit your "Skull & Bones Evolution museum" too?

Looking at your A,B, or C options it's obvious that you are just trolling, I'm not even going to dignify that crap with a response.

Because you know you can't respond, it's against your Religion.
If you evolved from gorillas, you or your ancestors had to evolve one day somehow, those bones didn't that's for sure!

 

[Arius]

There's a difference between loose colloquial word meanings and their technical meanings (q.v. 'Theory').
The technical definition of proof used in the sciences is definition 1.3 here:

1.3 - A series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.

Example sentences:​

• ‘Nguyen's work is one manifestation of her longstanding love for rigorous and creative mathematical proofs.’
• ‘Euclid changed the proofs of several theorems in this book so that they fitted the new definition of proportion given by Eudoxus.’
• ‘Fermat subsequently died, leaving mathematicians to search for 350 years for a proof of the theorem.’

Evolution is a fact - e.g. we have observed evolution in action. The 'Theory of Evolution' is a well-evidenced and well-tested explanation for the variety of life, based on that fact.

Observing evolution in action, variety of life like dog breeding, I agree, but that's NOT what Evolutionists are saying when they call darker skinned people "animals, evolving apes".

 

[Arius]

You do realise that evolution happens over a huge period of time, well that is not entirely true, evolution happens over a huge amount of generations. So all we need is to find something that ticks through generations fast!

Something like say E.coli - an ongoing study in experimental evolution that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual E. Coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.

50,00 generations later and they have witnessed huge changes.

Not fast, the gorillas we have today been "evolving" for the past 4 billion years, started as amoeba. Four Billion years, yet NOT ONE is even expected to speciate.
Huge changes? Yes, doves are a good example of those "huge changes", but they remain doves, just as the bacteria remain bacteria even after 50,000 generations.

Science has not been around for very long so to suggest that we should have witnessed evolution outside of the rapid generational creatures is simply unrealistic.

We have eight million different living species that have been evolving for the past 4 BILLION years. Are you saying 4,000,000,000 years of evolving and still not one recorded speciation??
Evolutionists even admit it never happens, .. speciation, it never happens, and they say if it did, it would prove evolution wrong!

The best way of looking at it, we have a snap shot of the evolutionary process at a set point in time. So what can we expect:

1) Related animals that are almost separating as species: We'd expect that they can still mate, as they are technically the same species but those offspring to be a little strange and in some cases genetically weak.
2) Some animals will be at the start of the evolutionary process - so you'll see the start of divergence.
3) Positive mutations exist, that natural selection has not effected yet.

1) Tigers and Lions are able to mate - but there genetic offspring are a strange mix, look up Liger and Tigon. There are a more examples
2) Orca - in different part of the world have started to demonstrate small differences in teeth shape and behaviours that looks like the divergence of there species. (millions of years to go)
3) In human beings we have seen some genetic mutations that give certain people malaria resistance another giving higher bone density.

Look friend, I know all about the horrors that Evolutionists have been doing with "genetic mutilation", and the strong teeth we supposedly get from the poison called Fluoride we been tricked into using that makes our teeth brittle.
Yes, those Ligers are amazing, but cats will remain cats.

Four billion years, eight million living species, 8.2 million scientists, and NOT ONE even expects any of these 8 million species to speciate, evolve into something better, or a different species like man supposedly evolved from gorillas. We all live happily side by side, eat the same food, tolerate the same environment, so of course the scientists are not looking for any animal to speciate. So they get Peleoartist's to do the speciating from gorilla to human for them to keep the Religion alive.

But when asked: "What species is that drawing you have of "Lucy"?
The answer, .. it's a human. So Lucy the human evolved into a human, wow, mind boggling science we have here. Let me tell my children: "Look kids, Lucy was a human, we don't need God anymore, .. Yaay!

I'd usually try to give a little more detail, but I need sleep and you all have google.

Yes, Google, debating sites, and YouTube is where I got the evidence that evolution never happened.

Good night my friend.

 

[Arius]

And nothing to do with anything we posted or with anything Dawkins ever said.

Are you now suggesting that Dawkins admits that evolution/speciation of one species into a different species (like the gorilla into a human) happens?

Which species has he observed to speciate into another species, .. it's been over 4 billion years! We had Coco the gorilla who could sign language, how much more time do we need to witness a species make that "Giant Leap to mankind"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because I heard, and read Professor Richard Dawkins (and other Evolutionists, including fellow debaters) say that: "No species of ANY kind has ever evolved/speciated into a completely different species in its lifetime! That is why we still have gorillas, because evolution/speciation of one species into a complete different species never happens" .. and poor Darwin believed that gorillas evolved/speciated into humans.

Why, what qualifications does someone need to point out such obvious contradictions claimed as science!? I just point out what's being said, what qualifications do I need for that?

Could you please answer my questions without the snarkiness, please?

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

 

[USincognito]

Hmmm, this is proving (no irony intended) to be a path I have trod far to many times and wasted much time on over the last 14 1/2 years I have been a member of CF...

You really should tell this to Richard Dawkins, that: "it is impossible for science to prove anything", ..

I get that Creationists are big on authority and less so on actual evidence, but cannot comprehend why they have this obsession with Professor Dawkins (and Dr. Gould to a lesser extent these days). They are not apostles nor are their writings and opinions epistles. It would be more productive for Creationists and indicative of actual scientific literacy if they were to actually address the points I and the content of my cited article make.

because the poor man swears that Evolution/speciation of gorillas to human is a fact,

Again, not to put a too fine a point on this, but I've been doing this a very long time and lying about Professor Dawkins is not going to end well for you. Nowhere in his writings or speeches does he claim, suggest or even allude to humans being descended from gorillas.

...and goes around the world showing off his murdered Aborigine skull to prove it.

Making false claims about Professor Dawkins is not winning strategy. In 2005 I had the pleasure of hearing the Professor speak a a conference before he went totally all crazy atheist, and not once did he bring any skull, fossil or other physical prop, much less a "murdered Aborigine skull".


cont. -

 

[Rivga]

Yes, those Ligers are amazing, but cats will remain cats.

I think I understand your issue, what you are saying is that science has been unable to point to a moment when one species changed into another. The exact point!

And you are correct, because that is not how evolutions works.


The easiest way to explain how evolution works is this tried and tested comparison:

A person has a photo taken of him every day from the day he was born to the day he is 60 years old. They are placed in a folder in time order. If someone took out 2 photos one of the person at 5 years old and another of the person at 20. You would be able to say one picture is of a child and another is of a Man. But try as you may would you be able to go back and find two photographs that are the next day to each other and state that this day he was a child and then the next day a man.

Same thing with evolution, small change after small changes over generation after generation and eventually you get a different species.

 

[Rivga]

those Ligers are amazing

The are amazing because the represent the end of a Species, so a Species is separation is where one species is no longer able to mate with another one to produce an offspring. They are genetically different enough that mating is impossible.

The Tiger and Lion are only just the same species, and as both the liger and tigon are unable to produce offspring so tigers and lions are only able to produce 1 generation of offspring.

As I said this is one snap shot of the evolutionary process.

 

[USincognito]

But from what you are showing me about science, H2O could be carbon monoxide for all we know!?

This is kind of a great example. Simple observations fall into the scientific "law" area of scientific propositions, but it's a bit off. A potential falsifying observation would not be "H2O" being "CO", but that water could be a different chemical composition than H2O and we have been wrong about it all along. As the linked article points out, it's not the likelihood of the potential falsification that is required, but it's mere existence.

All I was asking you guys is: How did a population of gorillas evolve/speciate into a population of humans, .. that's all. "Over a long period of time is not an answer. That just tells me how long it took.

Since humans didn't evolve from gorillas the question is a non-sequitur. Humans and chimpanzees evolved from a population that shared common ancestry with our gorilla cousins. Based on the current evidence (that's what a fact means in science) the gorilla/homininae population split occurred about 12-15 million years ago.

The answer from every one of you (besides stalling and avoiding the question) is that evolution/speciation of gorillas to human NEVER happened, and from what you are telling me now, scientists couldn't prove it even if they witnessed it and documented it because it is impossible for science to prove anything! lol

1. No science advocate here, or any where claims that humans evolved from gorillas.
2. Major speciation events for derived mammals do no occur in, say, 200 years or less.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Observing evolution in action, variety of life like dog breeding, I agree, but that's NOT what Evolutionists are saying when they call darker skinned people "animals, evolving apes".

Evolutionists say all humans are "animals, evolving apes", because the genetic makeup of all human populations is evolving and we are all animals and we are all apes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

YES, .. finally, .. that's what I am asking you, that: "How is speciation seen to occur, and when the basic elements of the evolutionary process are complete!? How does this happen? .. like from your common ancestor the gorilla, into a human? How?
Is it that, after millions and billions of years of slowly evolving, a population of gorilla morph (as in morphology) into human one day, or do they all give birth to human offspring?

I understand that this moment when a gorilla (aka common ancestor) changes to a complete different species takes a long time, and that this happens gradually, but what happens when the gorilla, an entire population of gorillas make that switch?

I think it has been explained to you many times. The process is slow and gradual over millions of years.

Just like night becomes day. It is not nighttime...nighttime...nighttime...noon! Rather there is a long stretch of dawn leading up to full daylight.

Just like a baby becomes an adult. Just like an acorn becomes a tree. Just like an eohippus evolved into a horse.

And also, we did not come from gorillas. We came from a common ancestor of chimps, gorillas and humans. This ancestor was most likely quite similar to modern apes. It was probably quite gorilla like.

In England there are two completely different gulls, the herring gull and the black back gull. If you track the herring gull west you find they can continuously mate as though the same species all around to Asia. If you track the black backs east, you can also follow a string of mating birds back to Asia. And guess what you find in Asia? Both strings mate together as though they are the same species. So you have a continuous string around the globe, with two completely different gulls where the two ends meet.

This is how evolution works. One can easily see that these all descended from a single parent species, but as they spread out, began to evolve in different ways. Should the gulls in North America get wiped out, the ring would be broken, and we would end up with distinct species.

The same thing could have happened to our ancestor. Different members started to get more chimplike and others more homo-like. Eventually the two lines divided, and went their seperate ways.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are you now suggesting that Dawkins admits that evolution/speciation of one species into a different species (like the gorilla into a human) happens?

Which species has he observed to speciate into another species, .. it's been over 4 billion years! We had Coco the gorilla who could sign language, how much more time do we need to witness a species make that "Giant Leap to mankind"?

Of course Dawkins believes that animals evolve.

He does not believe that when he wakes up it is nighttime...nighttime...nighttime...noon! Rather, he expects a gradual dawn will be in the middle.

Likewise he does not believe it was ancestor...same ancestor...same ancestor...same ancestor...Einstein! In between there was a long period of "dawn"'

 

[Speedwell]

Because I heard, and read Professor Richard Dawkins (and other Evolutionists, including fellow debaters) say that: "No species of ANY kind has ever evolved/speciated into a completely different species in its lifetime! That is why we still have gorillas, because evolution/speciation of one species into a complete different species never happens" .. and poor Darwin believed that gorillas evolved/speciated into humans.

Why, what qualifications does someone need to point out such obvious contradictions claimed as science!? I just point out what's being said, what qualifications do I need for that?

The only qualification that you need is to understand what is being said. Alas, you obviously do not possess that qualification.

 

[Shemjaza]

YES, .. finally, .. that's what I am asking you, that: "How is speciation seen to occur, and when the basic elements of the evolutionary process are complete!? How does this happen? .. like from your common ancestor the gorilla, into a human? How?
Is it that, after millions and billions of years of slowly evolving, a population of gorilla morph (as in morphology) into human one day, or do they all give birth to human offspring?

I understand that this moment when a gorilla (aka common ancestor) changes to a complete different species takes a long time, and that this happens gradually, but what happens when the gorilla, an entire population of gorillas make that switch?

It's not sudden. No generation looks particularly different from the previous.

If the split happened two million years ago, then the two populations of very similar creatures have more then 80000 generations of different random tiny changes and different environmental pressures to lead to two quite different looking primates.


For a human directed example, these two animals have a common ancestor some time after the invention of writing:

Now the pressure and selection are man made, but the random mutations that led to their different shapes come from nature. You'll notice that the shepard looks a lot more like the wolf ancestor then the pug, despite the same number of generations.

 

[Arius]

Hmmm, this is proving (no irony intended) to be a path I have trod far to many times and wasted much time on over the last 14 1/2 years I have been a member of CF...

I get that Creationists are big on authority and less so on actual evidence, but cannot comprehend why they have this obsession with Professor Dawkins (and Dr. Gould to a lesser extent these days). They are not apostles nor are their writings and opinions epistles. It would be more productive for Creationists and indicative of actual scientific literacy if they were to actually address the points I and the content of my cited article make.

I get it, it's the same old Jedi mind trick you learned from your Master Dawkins, asking me to debunk Evolution story from an Evolutionists perspective, using Evolutionist lingo, following Evolutionist MK-ultra mentality, and I say sorry my friend, if you want to debate from that perspective, please go to:

Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Kent Hovind has done an awesome and even enjoyable debunking of Evolution from an Evolutionist perspective hundreds of times.
Me, I'm just a simple follower of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, .. I go for the kill. Lies should not be entertained, but simply exposed to the truth/light, and like the blood sucking vampire that this story, falsely labeled theory is, once exposed to the "light", .. it will burn up, swept up and thrown out on the dung heap where it belongs.

Again, not to put a too fine a point on this, but I've been doing this a very long time and lying about Professor Dawkins is not going to end well for you. Nowhere in his writings or speeches does he claim, suggest or even allude to humans being descended from gorillas.

Are you sure, .. nowhere, never, .. ??
No, he just eludes to it, knowing just how ridiculous and insulting that would be to say it straight out. So what he does is call this ape ancestor of those of us he feels superior to, us animals as: "Common Ancestor".
So for the, .. I don't know, .. the hundredth time, I ask again: "What species is Dawkins 'Common Ancestor'"?
The line on that chart goes straight to a gorilla, but I guess now you're going to tell me; that's not a gorilla either. Good job in revealing just how confused Evolutionists really are.
My God is not a god of confusion, there is one who reserves that title, spoken of in:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

You see, even after 6,000 years, he plays the same game, .. twisting words. It's like you just said: "Nowhere in his writings or speeches does he claim, suggest or even allude to humans being descended from gorillas", why don't you just say the rest; ".. and not chimps either, and not monkeys, nowhere does Dawkins elude to ANY apes that man evolved from!" .. because he calls us (sub-humans) "apes", and "animals", with not so distant cousins of rats.

We evolved/speciated/morphed from a "common ancestor".
Q. What species was that "common ancestor"?
A. "We don't know." LOL

time 40:48 does that look anything like a human to you? Do you think that is a fair representation of "Evolution" when you are saying: "Nowhere in his writings or speeches does he claim, suggest or even allude to humans being descended from gorillas" ??

If someone made a family-photo collage of your family, and put your picture amongst a zoo full of apes like Dawkins has in this video

that I keep posting of that white suburban housewife, wouldn't you be offended with the comment you just made?
But I'm not offended my friend, I understand. I used to defend my Christian Religion with dumb remarks too. It's what we've been taught.

To repeat, lying about Professor Dawkins is not going to end well for you. In 2005 I had the pleasure of hearing the Professor speak a a conference before he went totally all crazy atheist, and not once did he bring any skull, fossil or other physical prop, much less a "murdered Aborigine skull".
View attachment 220245

cont. -

I wouldn't hold on to that picture for much longer if I were you, for the Lord will do the exact same thing Dawkins asked Evolutionists and other God-haters to do:

God will "ridicule him" with words from his own lips, even if He has to use someone as unlikely (self educated) peasant/fisherman like me.

 

[Rivga]

We evolved/speciated/morphed from a "common ancestor".
Q. What species was that "common ancestor"?
A. "We don't know." LOL

answer to your question is: Nakalipithecus nakayamai*

But what does it really matter, if science cannot pin point the exact animal where the divergence came? I fail to see how this is significantly important.

We will not be able to find a fossil of every animal, as fossils are exceptionally rare. More advancements in DNA/genes may mean that we can map it but for now that remains a dream.

You still seem to be under the misapprehension that evolution is a stepped process and you can identify each not species.


*Still a working Hypothesis, it certainly represents the closes fossil we have pre-gorilla/human/chimpanzee split.

 

[USincognito]

Because I heard, and read Professor Richard Dawkins

Science is evidence based, not authority based so it's better to actually talk about the evidence that what someone said.

(and other Evolutionists, including fellow debaters) say that: "No species of ANY kind has ever evolved/speciated into a completely different species in its lifetime! That is why we still have gorillas, because evolution/speciation of one species into a complete different species never happens" ..

He is entirely correct.
1. Extant species do not evolved into other extant or extinct species.
2. Major morphological changes in large, complex Metazoans does no happen in a single generation or within the lifetime of single individuals.
3. Speciation is a common ancestral species splitting into one or more subspecies which no longer interbreed due to geographic isolation, sexual selection or accumulated genetic differences.

...and poor Darwin believed that gorillas evolved/speciated into humans.

No he did not.

 

[USincognito]

Observing evolution in action, variety of life like dog breeding,

Dog breeding is selection in action, not evolution. Artificial selection is actually the opposite of evolution.

I agree, but that's NOT what Evolutionists are saying when they call darker skinned people "animals, evolving apes".

I don't know what "Evolutionists" are, but no science advocate is calling darker skinned people "animals, evolving apes" (which isn't even grammatical, much less scientific.

 

[USincognito]

Not fast, the gorillas we have today been "evolving" for the past 4 billion years, started as amoeba. Four Billion years, yet NOT ONE is even expected to speciate.

Actually all life has been evolving for about 3.5 billion years. Gorillas have only been around for several million years, the last common ancestor of genus Gorilla, genus Pan and genus Homo lived about ten to twelve million years ago. Also, there are two species of gorilla from which there are four subspecies.

...bacteria remain bacteria even after 50,000 generations.

Bacteria is a domain of life. Domains do not evolve into anything else because descendants don't stop being what their ancestors were. That's why humans are still apes, still haplorhines, still simiforms, still primates, still euarchontoglires, etc. etc.

Are you saying 4,000,000,000 years of evolving and still not one recorded speciation??

We observe a lot of speciation over the history of life on earth. The evidence is found in faunal succession, transitional fossils and genetics. We also observe behavioral and morphological change now in Italian Wall Lizards, Hawthorne Flies, mosquitoes in the London Underground

Evolutionists even admit it never happens, .. speciation, it never happens, and they say if it did, it would prove evolution wrong!

Again, that is taking Professor Dawkins speaking off the cuff and acting as if it were some law inscribed in stone and brought down from Sinai. Speciation does happen. It just does not happen in a way that causes major morphological change in a generation or so. Speciation is not Pokemon.

Look friend, I know all about the horrors that Evolutionists have been doing with "genetic mutilation", and the strong teeth we supposedly get from the poison called Fluoride we been tricked into using that makes our teeth brittle.

Yes, those Ligers are amazing, but cats will remain cats.

Hybridization is not speciation so this comment is a non sequitur.

cont. -