Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe so... kind of like the guys that fought so long they forgot what the fight was over.

... I will take that analogy because it is pretty apt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fossils in the illustation are different creatures.

Well, yes... they did live millions of years apart.
They are different species too.

That's kind of the point of transitionals.......
Species transitioning into other species.

Care to actually have a swing at the question asked?

Why don't the 2 middle ones have all the characteristics that define them as transitionals?
What's missing?

Now how did one evolve from the other (like Rimingtoncetidae from Ambulocetidae of the different creatures listed below)?

Mutate, survive, reproduct, repeat.

Now, why aren't the 2 middle ones transitionals between the outer ones?

We cannot just place different unearthed creatures in an organized fashion and claim one evolve from the other.

They are sequentially placed from old to young and they match by anatomy and their geographic locality makes sense in terms of an evolutionary history that goes from land animal to whale.

Why are the depicted fossils not proper transitionals in support of land to whale evolution?

How many times does the question need to be asked before you'll give an actual answer?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are many godless (without God in this world) naturalists (view things from only natural processes) that will not see the error of evolution claims, as you post pictures of supposed evolution truth.

In the photos you cannot see the men's assembly of unearthed fossils. How they are arranged and classified (judged) as macro-evolution.

Yes, godless naturalists do not see outside of natural processes.

For this reason they cannot see alternatives, and the error presented in such photos.

For example in the below, plain to see different creatures but could induce false conclusions.

View attachment 243688

In addition, now as the below photo shows, take into effect variation within each creature.

View attachment 243689

Dagma, what creatures you present in photos you perceive as naturally caused process (evolution). You cannot see different creatures, and variations of different creatures.

Additionally, which is where conjecture is very clear, when you do try to show actual demonstrable macro-evolution of land creatures morphing (yielding) creatures who become marine creatures you have only course macro-assemblages. Macro-assemblages with many missing fossils. For the reason they do not exist.

If the fossil record was examined and conclusions made by people who have God in this world and within them through His Spirit, they would conclude as many have testified, the fossil record only shows different creatures and variations of those creatures.

They would present to you [Bthe fossil record evidence of no fossils proving macro-evolution, and only fossils showing micro-evolution (variations of a creature).[/B] Evolution never happened.

But since the godless over promote their fossil record conjecture they feel they are the ones who have thr correct interpretation. But the fossil record shows their socalled evidence is conjecture based.

It is being godless (without God in this world) evolutionists on scanty fossil assemblages errantly promote evolution occurred on Earth. The conclusion is conjecture based.

1 billion christians don't have any problem with evolutionary theory.
Many theist biologist don't either.

You need to stop lying and start answering the question concerning the feet to flipper fossils.

 

[Heissonear]

Well, ........They are different species too.

.................the point of transitionals.......
Species transitioning into other species.

Why don't the 2 middle ones have all the characteristics that define them as transitionals?

By what evidence did the unearthed fossils become arranged as if from or of the adjacent creatures?

I'll use your photo to illustrate.

Why were the fossils arranged in the photo order?

It was because someone believed in evolution.

And the evolutionists had an objective.

The objective was to show how sea creatures were produced (evolved) from land creatures.

The evolutionists took the sedimentary environment the fossils were in into consideration.

Of the unearthered fossils, and the arrangement order, why are there only 4 fossils shown (in this case) to span the complete evolution of creatures from land to sea?

Of the following, 8 creatures are listed are the only ones unearthed and arranged as the creatures which of the evolution from land to sea. Of the eight creatures, only 5 are needed, since the fifth is Basilosauridae, which was already fully capable of marine life (flipper tail, etc).

I ask you, where are the creatures that evolved from Ambulocetidae to Rimingtoncetidae?

There are no such inbetween Ambulocetidae to Rimingtoncetidae fossils. Only Ambulocetidae and Rimingtoncetidae fossils.

That is called a gap of missing fossils that are needed to show the actual (not claimed) evolution of Ambulocetidae into Rimingtoncetidae.

Do you see the missing fossils and the arbitrary act of an evolutionist in sorting and arranging unearthed fossils to show evolution but without enough data/evidence. The evolutionists by conjecture placed select fossils in an arrangement that does not have enough fossils to prove what he tried to do.

The evolutionists did not have the number one thing needed: the actual fossils showing Ambulocetidae evolved into Rimingtoncetidae.

The claims the evolutionists used to arrange the unearthed creatures was based on conjecture, not actual fossil evidence.

This is very easy to see.

This is the basis of this thread: the fossil record does not show evolution. It shows creatures and variations of those creatures.

 

[Heissonear]

Little do the evolutionists of today know that they do not have foundational evidence for evolution.

The present evolutionists have thought that evolution in the fossil record was long ago proved.

Well, guess what, there is no fossil record proof evolution ever happened.

So many have thought others in prior time proved such with fossil evidence. But only now to find the fossil evidence does not exist.

Only evolutionists arranged macro-assemblages have been produced. There are missing fossils between every macro-assemblage. No fossils showing one creature listed in a macro-assemblage evolved into the next one, as the assemblage claims.

 

[Heissonear]

As one has stated earlier in this thread the revealing truth of lack of supportive evidence dismay:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The same posts keep getting repeated by heissonear and it always goes the same way that it's getting genuinely depressing.
@Heissonear, why won't you just cut all of the talk and just flat out say "I don't accept evolution and nothing can change my mind on this matter"?
You are never going to change anyone's mind with your caustic rhetoric, your constant use of lying about what scientists say and your general refusal to accept what anyone tells you about evolution.

 

[Kylie]

Kind = genus = kind.

And that definition means absolutely nothing.

I could say that a splonger is a plimbentuck that's been turned inside out so you can splarfle the nooblats, but that doesn't tell you anything does it?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what their genuses are.

You seem incapable of doing your own research. Genus - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

There is no collapsing, evolutionists just want to tell us what words mean, and they keep defining them to fit their aim. Bible interpreters once used species and kind interchangeably, so what did evolutionists do... they defined species in a way so as to make it look like the Bible was wrong – there was no such thing as kind with variation, but species that do change and anyone who thought different looked ignorant. Now they’re always wanting creationists to assign a kind (which they claim they can’t understand) to their totally confused and overlapping species list. They are doing the same thing with genus too... the devil’s tools.

Yeah, because science is all about making the Bible wrong.

Of course. Whatever you say. It's all a big conspiracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that definition means absolutely nothing.

Synonyms mean nothing to you?

I could say that a splonger is a plimbentuck ...

Um ... not a good comparison.

I pointed out that "genus" is a synonym for "kind."

Your example is of two things, neither of which is acceptable scientific jargon.

(Unless you're saying that "genus" is not an acceptable scientific word.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, because science is all about making the Bible wrong.

Yup ... that happens to be one of its byproducts.

And I think it's more than coincidental.

 

[Shemjaza]

I feel like AV isn't trying to be dishonest, but qualifiers make his favoured simple statements disingenuous to say the least.

Kind = genus* = kind
* with exceptions for personal religious preferences

Scientists* are a gift from God
* with exceptions for personal religious preferences

 

[xianghua]

True, the female ligers are fertile, but the males are not.

so what? the fact that they can interbreed prove that they are basically the same creature. this is why the definition"species" is problematic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But genus Homo is the exception, I assume?

Not if they put the apes where they really belong in the genus Hylobatidae and they stop trying to force them into the human genus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why would an increase of variety lead to sterility? Your argument makes no sense.

For the same reason when you dilute anything it is less than the original, not greater. Along with damaging mutations.

You are not increasing variation, you are varying what already exists.......

It only doesn’t make sense to an evolutionists that thinks variation is magically adding something to the genome, not merely taking an existing genome and running through possible combinations that already exist within it. Some lines lead to more possibilities than others....

What really made no sense is your belief that new species arise when every single time that saturation barrier is approached, the ability to mate becomes slimmer and slimmer to the point of non-existence and leads only to extinction.... but you keep ignoring that for some reason, why is that?????

 

[DogmaHunter]

By what evidence did the unearthed fossils become arranged as if from or of the adjacent creatures?

By age and comparative anatomy.
Each bone's (changing) morphology can be traced.

I'll use your photo to illustrate.

View attachment 243772

Why were the fossils arranged in the photo order?

From old to young.

It was because someone believed in evolution.

No. It's because it's from old to young.
Evolution theory predicts that if the one on the right (whale) evolved from the one on the left (the land animal), then you should be able to find fossils aged between them of such "feet" progressively changing into the "flipper" on the right.

And that's exactly what those 2 middle ones depict.
Their age is what is expected if the left evolved into the right.
Their anatomical morphology is what is expected if the left evolved into the right.

So in summary: they are ordered by age and put into a sequence, because the predicted anatomical morphology is exactly what is expected.

So, why can't the ones in the middle be called "transitionals" from the one on the left to the one on the right?

You seems to avoid answering this question like the plague.

And the evolutionists had an objective.
The objective was to show how sea creatures were produced (evolved) from land creatures.

No. That's what the theory stated. And that theory makes predictions: if it is accurate, you should be able to find fossils of "feet-flippers" with anatomy that shows this changing morphology and with ages that put them firmly in between both.

And that's exactly what those two middle ones are.

So, they are put up in that exhibit not because of some "agenda", but because they are the evidence that is predicted by the theory

The evolutionists took the sedimentary environment the fossils were in into consideration.

Of the unearthered fossils, and the arrangement order, why are there only 4 fossils shown (in this case) to span the complete evolution of creatures from land to sea?

Considering how hard it is to make a fossil, we're lucky to even have these 4 to begin with.
But somehow, I doubt the sincerity by which you say this.
Because let's be honest here... if there were 20 or 30 transitionals between the left and right, you'ld be here repeating the very same objections and PRATTs. You'ld be saying "why do we only have 48?".

And don't pretend as if that isn't true.

The fact is: we have these 4 to work with, and they match the predictions of the theory.
Do we have more of these? Maybe. These 4 are the ones that happen to be in that exhibit.

You are giving us the typical dishonest nonsense.... Fill a "gap" with a fossil and you'll have creationists complaining about 2 new "gaps". Fill those "gaps" and those same creationists will now complaing about 4 gaps. Then 8. Then 16. And so on.

Of the following, 8 creatures are listed are the only ones unearthed and arranged as the creatures which of the evolution from land to sea. Of the eight creatures, only 5 are needed, since the fifth is Basilosauridae, which was already fully capable of marine life

Being fully aquatic, is not the end of the line.
Just like Homo Erectus wasn't the end of the line.

I ask you, where are the creatures that evolved from Ambulocetidae to Rimingtoncetidae?

You don't get to ask questions until you actually answer the question that has been put you dozens of times by now, and which you still did not answer:

Why can't the 2 middle limbs in the picture be called "transitional" from the one on the left to the one on the right.

More generic: which characteristics should a fossil have, in order to be called a "transitional" between A and B?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Little do the evolutionists of today know that they do not have foundational evidence for evolution.

Only if you keep ignoring and lying about the actual evidence, like you've been doing for months now.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not if they put the apes where they really belong in the genus Hylobatidae and they stop trying to force them into the human genus.

That makes absolutely zero sense.

And you fancy yourself as an expert on taxonomy?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no collapsing, evolutionists just want to tell us what words mean, and they keep defining them to fit their aim. Bible interpreters once used species and kind interchangeably, so what did evolutionists do... they defined species in a way so as to make it look like the Bible was wrong – there was no such thing as kind with variation, but species that do change and anyone who thought different looked ignorant. Now they’re always wanting creationists to assign a kind (which they claim they can’t understand) to their totally confused and overlapping species list. They are doing the same thing with genus too... the devil’s tools.

Yah, ever notice that. They claim they can understand 26+ definitions of species, but can never seem to fathom Kind......

Self imposed selective understanding IMO...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That makes absolutely zero sense.

And you fancy yourself as an expert on taxonomy?

Of course it makes no sense, you think humans are apes and apes aren’t apes but human......