And yet reputable scientists who study such things for a living do.
Why is your opinion of greater value than their conclusions?
It is not and not of lesser value either.
Upvote
0
And yet reputable scientists who study such things for a living do.
Why is your opinion of greater value than their conclusions?
Details please.
Are you serious?
There are no 'ones' involved, it is differential reproductive success - there is nothing that I am aware of in the genome or in the cell that 'selects" - this is freshman level stuff.
Then why ask?
a) I do not ask how inheritance works or about different type of mutations (more twist).
b) I see now that you do not believe that nature "selects" (hence natural selection plays no role in this)
Great!
It is of lesser value when it seems to rest entirely on your mere desire for them not to be transitional.
I expressed no such desire (more twist),
but if it were, why would that make it of lesser value (i understand you response to this will be YOUR opinion so please feel free)? I do not care if they are or are not "transitional" whatever that means for you.
If one day they prove to be "transitional" (?) so be it. If one day they are proved to NOT be "transitional" (?) so be it. But let's start this diversion with what YOU mean when you say "transitional"....
Opinions that are premised on desires (not evidence) have no weight to them, they can be dismissed.
If true, then there goes about half of what scientists say...right down the drain.
How about you provide a legitimate, evidence-backed rationale for claiming that the skulls presented do not represent transitionals.
Though a negative cannot be proven, as for an evidence-backed rationale, the skull presentation provided were skulls and fragments of skulls reconstructed ARE from various locations, ARE from differing time periods (not in a chronological order), and some ARE clearly human and others clearly ape (admittedly some could be either). So why should I believe they describe transitionals?
Now IF transitionals means two different things that have homological similarities then yes (Pterodactyls and Bats both have wings) they can be said to be "transitionals" (a later redefinition to make the hypothesis appear correct by which staunch evolutionists can equivocate) BUT
If by transitionals you are implying in-between states (the actual definition of the term) where one lineally led to the other than a MAYBE or COULD BE will have to suffice (and we can agree to disagree).
Last one for today...
Examples please.
And your sources for these accusations?
What is it that YOU believe constitutes a transitional?
I like the fragment dig - you know, if you know what you are looking at (as a paleoanthropologist would), a lot of information can be gleaned from fragments.
Wow.
A strawman followed by an insulting accusation - I'm shocked.
I am not sure that that is what the term means. I know that creationists like to play games with definitions to suit their needs. Unless you can show us where a paleoanthropologist has stated as a conclusion (as opposed to speculation) that the possessor of one fossil skull gave rise to the next?
That's not a matter of opinion, the chemical composition of the moon is extremely similar to that of our planet. Plus, the moon we have is far too large to have been pulled in as a foreign object into orbit; in fact, it's very slowly escaping orbit.That the moon splintered off from the earth
A conclusion derived from fossil observations and genetic similarity. It's not simply an opinion.That over time fish became amphibians (or amphibians into reptiles)
You'd need to actually name the species you are referencing here, since more than one you could be possibly referencing has been discovered there. Given that all modern apes do use tools, as well as quite a few other organisms (many primates, some birds, dolphins, etc.), it's not really a huge jump to conclude that tools found in the same rock layer and near the bodies of some ancient apes were probably made by them.That the small ape fossils in the Olduvai Gorge represented the creature who made and used the early stone tools
In my words, an in-between state or creature that constitutes one becoming the other...
-_- that's one of many Homo erectus fossils. Gotta watch out for that; since that species lived in so many places and had a lot of variety in terms of height and certain facial features, a lot of times fossils found in specific reasons get nicknames like that to help differentiate them from fossils of the same species found in other places."fragment dig" was that a pun? Yes it can...while a lot of important information can be and has been gleaned sometimes assumptions have been made though history. Not limiting this to ONLY paleoanthropologists and since I know you will demand examples rather than just admitting the truth, I will offer...Dubois’ Java man
-_- maybe you could call the half of the lower jaw discovered in 1907 a "fragment", though that would be a stretch. Most of the fossils related to this species seem to be surprisingly complete skulls. There are a few teeth discoveries, but they happened well after skulls were discovered., some of the early the Heidelbergensis examples
Oh, you mean Lucy, which remains remarkably complete and is not "just fragments"?, and Leaky’s “early human ancestor” in Time Magazine....(which brainwashed millions)
That's not a matter of opinion, the chemical composition of the moon is extremely similar to that of our planet. Plus, the moon we have is far too large to have been pulled in as a foreign object into orbit; in fact, it's very slowly escaping orbit.
A conclusion derived from fossil observations and genetic similarity. It's not simply an opinion.
You'd need to actually name the species you are referencing here, since more than one you could be possibly referencing has been discovered there. Given that all modern apes do use tools, as well as quite a few other organisms (many primates, some birds, dolphins, etc.), it's not really a huge jump to conclude that tools found in the same rock layer and near the bodies of some ancient apes were probably made by them.
I've heard creationists say that before, and I show them Tiktaalik, and they say "oh no, that's not becoming something new, it's a complete creature". I have no idea why some people think an organism that is transitioning into another wouldn't be "complete", they have to survive and reproduce over many generations people, and all the body parts evolve together, so it wouldn't even make sense for an organism to be from the waist down reptile and from the waist up amphibian.
-_- that's one of many Homo erectus fossils. Gotta watch out for that; since that species lived in so many places and had a lot of variety in terms of height and certain facial features, a lot of times fossils found in specific reasons get nicknames like that to help differentiate them from fossils of the same species found in other places.
-_- maybe you could call the half of the lower jaw discovered in 1907 a "fragment", though that would be a stretch. Most of the fossils related to this species seem to be surprisingly complete skulls. There are a few teeth discoveries, but they happened well after skulls were discovered.
Oh, you mean Lucy, which remains remarkably complete and is not "just fragments"?
Opinions that are premised on desires (not evidence) have no weight to them, they can be dismissed.
If true, then there goes about half of what scientists say...right down the drain.
Examples please.
That the moon splintered off from the earth
That over time fish became amphibians (or amphibians into reptiles)
That the small ape fossils in the Olduvai Gorge represented the creature who made and used the early stone tools
For a few....
What is it that YOU believe constitutes a transitional?
In my words, an in-between state or creature that constitutes one becoming the other
...
I like the fragment dig - you know, if you know what you are looking at (as a paleoanthropologist would), a lot of information can be gleaned from fragments.
"fragment dig" was that a pun? Yes it can...while a lot of important information can be and has been gleaned sometimes assumptions have been made though history. Not limiting this to ONLY paleoanthropologists and since I know you will demand examples rather than just admitting the truth, I will offer...Dubois’ Java man, some of the early the Heidelbergensis examples, and Leaky’s “early human ancestor” in Time Magazine....(which brainwashed millions)
That the moon splintered off from the earth
That's not a matter of opinion, the chemical composition of the moon is extremely similar to that of our planet. Plus, the moon we have is far too large to have been pulled in as a foreign object into orbit; in fact, it's very slowly escaping orbit.
It Is an opinion because they do not KNOW.
Because it is believed and taught does not make it true.
That over time fish became amphibians (or amphibians into reptiles)
A conclusion derived from fossil observations and genetic similarity. It's not simply an opinion.
Again it IS an opinion! There are ZERO fossil examples of fibians or amphibish anywhere.
All living things share DNA in common but one can interpret this as merely similarity because we all living things on earth share similarity at this level, all being composed of three base sequences (in various possible configurations) of a four letter coding system.
There is so much wrong about your response Sarah it would take a small book to answer but I will address a few points but only to show the confusion some make between actual data and speculation based on the data. Next post....
Sarah already dealt with these, but just to add a bit.
So, you just label things that you, for non-scientific reasons, don't want to accept as 'opinions based on desires.'
How clever.
But I find it fantastic, once again, that someone that relies on claims of 3 decades of 'study' and the like puts forth an implication that 'That over time fish became amphibians' is just a desire-based opinion.'
'In-between' - sort of like Tiktaalik? Or Archaeopteryx? Or are you more like 'crocoduck'?
So... You count mistakes and the like as "assumptions"?
Speaking of 'brainwashing millions...' - I give you
Sunday School.
Vacation Bible School.
Televangelists.
The Discovery Institute.
etc.