Dogma, you are trying to prove fossil arrangement by use of 4 fossils to prove the complete evolution of mammals morphing from land to marine mammals.
I'm not trying to
prove anything.
I'm saying that here we have a theory, called Evolution, and the evolutionary history of wales coming from land mammals.
And here we have fossils depicting the exact morphology that we would expect if that theory is accurate. Not just the specific anatomy of those fossils, but also the place, the rock, they were found in, but also the dating of thing makes perfect sense in context of evolution theory.
You apparantly disagree that these fossils support the predictions of evolution theory.
I'm asking why. I'm asking why this fossil sequence can't be called transitionals.
What is the problem? Why do you disagree that these fossils support the predictions of theory. Which predictions don't they support and explain whow they don't.
Use of 4 fossils is a clear stretch-claim one evolved into the other and show land to marine evolution occurred.
How do these fossils not support the idea that wales evolved from land animals?
Are these kinds of fossils exactly the kinds of fossils one would expect to find, if a land animal species gradually evolved into the wale species?
You state "the theory predicts." Showing 4 fossils with such a statement is not evidence.
That's actually the very definition of evidence.
If a land animal species with 4 limbs gradually evolves into sea animal species with flippers over millions of years, then we expect to find fossils over the course of those millions of years of limbs that show morphological change from "feet-like" to "flipper-like".
The younger, the more "flipper-like".
The older, the more "feet-like".
How do these fossils not match those predictions in both locality as well as feature set?
Isolated creatures of different environments arranged by evolutionists to claim land to marine evolution does not fly.
Ignoring the very fossils in front of your nose and/or handwaving them away nonensical one-liners, does not fly.
How do the fossils in the picture not match the predictions of evolution theory concerning wale evolution from land ancestors?
The creatures in their environments were isolated.
This makes no sense as an objection.
One needs fossils of one changing into the other to confirm the claim.
How does the sequence in the picture not show exactly that?
It needs to be faced: the fossils that show one fossil changing into the next fossil are missing.
How is it missing? It is right there in the picture.
How do those fossils not exhibit change from old to young?
Evolution lacks the detailed fossil record supportive evidence
I just showed you exactly such fossils and I also explained how they are supportive evidence.
Your response so far, can be summarized as "
na-ah!!!".
They are wild claims to state/claim/or try to prove the anatomy of each of the 4 fossils are morphologically similar in a sequential order that shows evolution happened.
How do the fossils not show exactly the progression that evolution expects there to be?
That would be called a Macro-evolution claim.
Macro-evolution claims do not fly; that is not proof of evolution ocurred.
I don't care what you call it.
Calling it differently, won't make it go away.
How do the fossils in the picture not match the predictions of evolution theory concerning wale evolution?
Only claims from 4 distinctly different fossils that one evolved from the other, even if time sequence is determined, does not fly. They are words used to state a claim. The real evidence, fossils, are missing.
I just explained to you how these 4 are supportive of the theory.... the theory predicts their existance and lo and behold, there they are.
So, how don't they match the predictions of the theory?
You are missing fossil evidence and are trying to Macro claim your way to state evolution happened. You are following the path of other over-promoters before you.
The only thing that I am claiming, is that these fossils are completely within the expectations of the theory.
The theory makes predictions about what type of fossils we should be finding in what time periods, and the fossils in the picture are exactly those kinds of fossils.
That makes them supportive evidence of the theory.
You disagree. Why?
What predictions of the theory don't they match?
Science is based on factual evidence. Where are the fossils between the macro-assemblages representatives? They do not exist.
They do exist. They are shown in the picture.
The ones in the middle are the fossils between the "macro-assemblages representatives" the the left and right.
So, how do these fossils not match the predictions of the theory?
If the fossils are not found between the 4 listed creatures then any claim such fossils did occur between one of the 4 creatures is mere claims without due evidence.
Haaaaaa, there we go....
You want "in between" fossils of the "in betweens" shown in the picture.
And when you get those, you'll ask for "in betweens" of the "in betweens" and repeat the same nonsense statements as always.
And when you get those, you'll ask for "in betweens" of the "in betweens" of the "in betweens".
And so it will continue.
Exacly like I said in my previous post.
Each time a newly discovered fossil fills a gap, you'll complain about 2 new "gaps".
Meanwhile..... the fossils under discussion here, are the 4 fossils shown in the pciture.
Meanwhile.... those 4 fossils are exactly what is expect in both age and morphology, if evolution theory and wale origins is accurate.
Meanwhile.... those 4 fossils are 100% consistent with an evolutionary history of a land mammal evolving into modern wales.
I'll just state it once more, since you also don't seem to get that part:
Making a fossil is hard. There's no guarantee of any species ever fossilizing at all. We are lucky to have as many fossils as we do. And the fossils that we have
are completely consistent with the predictions of evolution theory.
Just like these 4.
You are welcome to still try and point out how these 4 do not match the predictions of evolution.
But I will not be holding my breath. You have once again demonstrated the sheer dishonesty by which you are approaching this subject. It is pathetic and embarassing.
If evolution occurred, then there would be a complete string sequence between the 4 fossils,
Why? As explained multiple times already, there is no guarantee of fossilization at all.
There's also still quite a few fossils out there waiting to be discovered off course.
We can only work with the fossils that we DO have.
And all those fossils, bar none, all match the predictions of evolution. As it should be.
You disagree apparantly. The question is why.
The 4 shown in the picture, how don't they match the predictions of the theory?
showing one evolved into the other: no mere words needed. It would be shown by fossils.
Like the ones in the picture....
You cannot by reason or conclusion statements produce evidence.
It's a good thing that we don't then.
We produce evidence by testable predictions.
Evolution of wales predicts fossils of land limbs progressing into flippers over time.
And that's exactly what the fossils in the picture show. The younger, the more flipper-like. The older, the more leg-like. With "intermediate" stages where it has characteristics of both feel and flippers.
So, again, what's the problem?
I've completely lost count about how many times I asked you by now to actually address the fossils shown in the picture.
Are you gonna?
