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.
Then perhaps you can explain why out of 12,000 different species of animal on the island of Madagascar 10,000 of them are found nowhere else on earth?This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring. It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"
You made this claim 'evolution was an equivocation game played by evolutionists'Are you just asking to ask or were you going to present an argument?
This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring. It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"
Simple geographic isolation of populations obviously does not necessarily drive Evolution.
Interestingly, in the evolutionary paradigm, jaguars and leopards (two other "Pantheras") have been separated for over a million years, yet can still produce offspring.
Strange that reproductive isolation is supposed to stimulate evolutionary change yet appears to be totally ineffective.
Why do evolutionists completely misrepresent this process as if it somehow guarantees the origin of new types of animals?
Division of gene pools can just as easily be tending towards lack of genetic variation, genomic degradation and eventual extinction.
But by getting you to equate the word 'speciation' with 'evolution', evolutionists will trick you into believing there are numerous examples of "observed evolution".
Here is one example I just came across of molecular data failing to align with fossil data under a prediction of evolution. This is no problem of course and the authors go on to retrofit a new ad-hoc rate-change molecular model, but not before throwing out another familiar rescue device "incomplete fossil record"
Evidence for a convergent slowdown in primate molecular rates and its implications for the timing of early primate evolution
A long-standing problem in primate evolution is the discord between paleontological and molecular clock estimates for the time of crown primate origins: the earliest crown primate fossils are ∼56 million y (Ma) old, whereas molecular estimates for the haplorhine-strepsirrhine split are often deep in the Late Cretaceous. One explanation for this phenomenon is that crown primates existed in the Cretaceous but that their fossil remains have not yet been found... Here we provide strong evidence that this discordance is better-explained by a convergent molecular rate slowdown in early primate evolution.
You should be grateful. There is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with that one.GENERAL NOTE: lifepsyop has me on ignore. .
As if that means anything. You have an expertise in the nonsense that is evolution, backed by hundreds of years of falsehoods, frauds, and suppositions.
This whole "speciation" thing is a giant red herring.
It's an equivocation game. It's the same game evolutionists play by saying "mutations happen - therefore evolution"... only in this case it's: "populations become isolated - therefore evolution"
Simple geographic isolation of populations obviously does not necessarily drive Evolution.
Division of gene pools can just as easily be tending towards lack of genetic variation, genomic degradation and eventual extinction.
This is most certainly the actual long-term trajectory... instead of some mythical arrival of new types of life that evolutionists believe in.
But by getting you to equate the word 'speciation' with 'evolution', evolutionists will trick you into believing there are numerous examples of "observed evolution". They will present you with a wall of references, as Split_Rock did earlier, hoping you will swallow the false idea that you're rejecting a mountain of empirical data if you reject Evolution.
One explanation for this phenomenon is that crown primates existed in the Cretaceous but that their fossil remains have not yet been found...[/I] Here we provide strong evidence that this discordance is better-explained by a convergent molecular rate slowdown in early primate evolution.
Why exactly is this a problem of the ToE given what we know of the rarity of fossils being preserved in general?
Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as separate species when they were actually babies of those adults, and in Triceratops, it's the adult form you had as another species.
You cite a handful of occurrences when literally MILLIONS of fossils have been found and classified. In what way, shape, or form is that the VAST MAJORITY?
And how many of those other millions of your precious fossils have you cut open and looked at? The few Mr. Horner and a couple others decided to look into??? I'd say we got a few million to cut into yet to show another 85% misclassified as well. We have only seen the pitiful few examined so far that has made the headlines.
Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as.
All fossils are the same of every kind with only minor variation. The T-Rex is a T-Rex, from the first one found to the last. As are ALL of them. All of them.
Many fossils are broken when their found. They're rarely in pristine condition. And do you have any data to suggest that scientists aren't checking inside fossils? Anything? No? Okay then.
Your claims lack merit.
Yah I do, your own Highly Proclaimed Archeologist who just doesn't need your grants any longer.
Fossils which we know in a vast majority of cases were wrongly classified as separate species when they were actually babies of those adults, and in Triceratops, it's the adult form you had as another species.
This isn't a rare occurrence and is happening today right before your eyes with Felidae and thousands of others, and you allow it. All because the ToE is not a valid theory. All fossils are the same of every kind with only minor variation. The T-Rex is a T-Rex, from the first one found to the last. As are ALL of them. All of them.
The data dictates a theory that is in-line with variation of distinct kinds, not one kind evolving into another. The missing link isn't missing, it was never there to begin with as the data is beginning to show.
Neither fossils nor DNA is supporting ToE any longer as technology continues to advance. It's pointing you in one direction, so finally there will be no excuse.
Edit:
Mainstream's own cash cow "mutation in plant and animal husbandry", was basically abandoned because it failed to produce results, yet we hear mutation this and mutation that, while in those lifeforms we are supposed to see evolution happening through mutation, the experts abandoned it.
Yah I do, your own Highly Proclaimed Archeologist who just doesn't need your grants any longer.
I would love to see you show us Jack Horner claiming that he was coerced into accepting common descent because he needed grant money. Go ahead. Or do you have nothing but baseless innuendo to back up your dogma?
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?