Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You imply it all the time.
It was your claim, why wouldn't ID produce a nested hierarchy?
You have pointed out that there is no evidence of plants/trees being present before the Cambrian...is that what you mean?This again? Haven't I already shown you that the sequence is wrong?
You have pointed out that there is no evidence of plants/trees being present before the Cambrian...is that what you mean?
That would require you to demonstrate that there has been a mistake. Where has anyone shown that these are not transitional fossils?
Where have you ever shown that they were produced by "breed mates"?
When you present real evidence of Creation.
So now another one joins the ranks of Ostrich Theory followers.
Real evidence. You mean like finches that have been interbreeding since they arrived on the islands and were incorrectly labeled as separate species?
The real question is when are you going to present real evidence in support of evolution - instead of mistake after mistake in classification?
Because they don't. Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy.
What you mean to say is you have never seen a Chevy Camaro become a dodge Charger. But only someone blinding themselves to the truth could ignore that clear hierarchy in each distinct class of cars all the way back to the first.
Are these finches?
Please show how cars fall into a nested hierarchy. Please use the shared and derived features, and show how you weighted the characteristics.
Those are part of the error you have not corrected yet.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground...."
"..."Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches," said White. "The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. It's arm-waving...."
"...Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks...."
Once you remove half of those, we will talk about what you have left. Which won't be anything but humans and apes attempted to be mixed together because you classified them wrong.
Let's put that picture back in shall we that you took out so people won't see the obvious.
Are you telling me you can't see the obvious hierarchy from the first one too the last? Go ahead - start with the first one and go all the way to the last - a clear path will develop.
We have land animals well before flowers and grasses, another big departure from the supposed sequence. The Bible has birds on day 5, and non-bird land animals on day 6. That is completely wrong.
Need I go on?
None of those were categorized as H. sapiens. All of them are transitional, no matter if you divide them into separate species or lump them into one. You can't seem to understand that we don't determine if a fossil is transitional by the name we give it. The transitional nature of a fossil is based on its morphology, not its name. Notice that the picture of the hominid transitionals has zero names on it.
Whether you consider them as three different species or one species, they are still transitional. That is what you still can not understand.
I have the morphology of the fossils left which is the only basis on which a transitional fossil is judged.
Yes, we understand you think land dwelling grass eaters appeared before there was grass to eat.
What you mean to say is that bone lasts longer than grass and is more likely to become fossilized before it decays.
Don't you all keep telling us about how rare fossilization is and we are missing most of the record?
http://www.livescience.com/50419-oldest-flower-fossil-angiosperm.html
"Like modern flowers, the fossil sports sepals and petals, the researchers said. However, its age of 162 million years puts it smack in the Jurassic period, and in the middle of a passionate debate over the origin of angiosperms, the world's most successful and diverse group of plants. Did angiosperms first bloom in the Cretaceous period, or were they around earlier, in the Jurassic period, the heyday of giant, plant-eating dinosaurs like Apatosaurus?
But go ahead Loud, keep practicing that Ostrich Theory.
None of them are transitional, not a single one. They are all of the same species, merely different breeds.
Just so we are clear, here is how a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny, works. At the end, you need all of the species in a tree on their own branch, like this one:
If we are using the Camaro's, then each model needs it's own branch. Where each branch connects we have the nodes. These represent the shared features for all of the species or models of Camaro's that trace back to that node. Here is a simple phylogeny with shared traits:
The first division is chordates with and without a vertebral column. Lancelets do not have a vertebral column, but all of the species on the other branch do. The next division is a jaw. Lampreys do not have a jaw, but all of the other species on the other branch do. We do the same thing with four walking legs, an amniotic egg, and hair. At the end, all of the groups are on their own branch and we have shared features as well as unshared features. They all fit onto a tree. Not only that, but it is quite obvious from the tree that having or not having a jaw is a much bigger deal than having or not having hair. The characteristics are weighted with some characteristics being more important than others.
So let's see the same thing for the cars. Come up with the physical characteristics that separate each car, and show how they can produce an objective phylogeny. Show how one feature is more important than others when producing the phylogeny.
Show me that species that divided into both Chimp and human.
We will discuss it when you can produce the evidence for the transitional fossils under question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?