Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Heissonear]

"can be"?
So, it doesn't have to?

You're gonna need a defenition that's a wee bit more bulletproof.

You have side stepped the fossils I requested from posts #7 in particular. Please provide missing fossils

We do not see evolution in the fossil record, only textbooks and publications produced macro-assemblages with missing fossils.

 

[Kylie]

Of course there are. Those finches are mating right in front of their noses, so what contradictory and competing definition are they using at once to call them separate species?????

What competing definition that works less well than their mating under their noses do you suggest????

So by your logic, lions and tigers are the same species because they can give birth to fertile offspring? (Yes, Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!, so don't try that way to get out of it.)

Of course, if you actually had any idea how evolution actually works, you'd know that the point I was making was that there are significant differences between the species (due to beak shape, habitat, etc), but these differences have not yet gotten to the point where they are genetically incompatible. However, if they are typically isolated populations (such as living on two different islands and the crossing from one to the other is not often made) then they will continue their separate ways to speciation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have side stepped the fossils I requested from posts #7 in particular. Please provide missing fossils

View attachment 243453

We do not see evolution in the fossil record, only textbooks and publications produced macro-assemblages with missing fossils.

I am still waiting on you to explain how the fossils in the "feet to flippers" picture should change before you'll accept them as transitionals.

I have been waiting for weeks now.

You are in no position to make demands, until you come clean.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are peoples professions that rely on what information you posted. The stream of news and claims from them continue.

You may what to examine the claims more critically.

So far a lot of socalled historical claims. Some get famous at their work in such arena of claims and finds.

The textual equivalent of white noise.

If there are any specific issues you would like to discuss please do so, these vague comments are pointless.

 

[Jimmy D]

Stop trying to place humans in the chimp lineage....... you won’t have to try so hard to find ancestors to link man and ape, since they exist only in your own mind.

Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

“Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the chimpanzees, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.”

They ain’t even sure it’s a hominin, so why are they presenting it as if it were????????

Ahh, because theory trumps facts any day, right?

And no, no, no. Why do you think I am promoting gradual speciation?????

What is your problem with understanding the variation we see in dogs yet knowing they are one species??? It is you that thinks Lucy is a separate species from her ape relatives, not me. I got actual evidence variation does not equal speciation, you just got claims those variants are separate species....

But theory trumps facts any day, right?

Right?????

I mean we got finches mating right in front of their noses and double-talk is all I hear to ignore that. So I’m not surprised something in the past is even more easily mistaken as a separate species....

Well you've successfully typed another post without responding to the point of my post that demonstrates that your A Afarensis > A Africanus > Pan Troglodytes is utter fantasy.

So come on. You base your "idea" on this...

Thus, if the age of each is accurately established and evolution from apes to humans had occurred, we would expect that the later A. africanus specimens would be more human-like than
A. afarensis. However, the opposite is true. A. africanus has a more apelike limb proportion than A. afarensis....

Yet you have to ignore the morphology of all other early hominds.

I keep asking you about Australopithecus Sediba which you are blatantly refusing to acknowledge, how does that fit in? By your criteria it is a "variation" of A Afarensis, yet it's found later in the fossil record and is more homo like, it hasn't somehow "degenerated" to be more chimp like.

I'll give you another opportunity but if you can't respond I will have to assume that you concede that this (d)evolution stuff is utter nonsense. As if we didn't already know.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ardipithecus - Wikipedia

“Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the chimpanzees, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.”

They ain’t even sure it’s a hominin, so why are they presenting it as if it were????????

Ahh, because theory trumps facts any day, right?

No one mentioned Ardipithicus did they, besides did you bother reading your link beyond the first sentence?

Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithecus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behavior.

So is Ardipithicus yet another example which demonstrates that your hypothesis is wrong?

"The A. afarensis skeleton A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’) is geologically older (3.18 Ma) than that of the A. africanus skeleton Sts 14 (2.4–2.8 Ma.). Thus, if the age of each is
accurately established and evolution from apes to humans had occurred, we would expect that the later A. africanus specimens would be more human-like than
A. afarensis. However, the opposite is true. A. africanus has a more apelike limb proportion than A. afarensis....

...Certain aspects of the A. africanus pelvis are also more chimp-like than A. afarensis. So rather than becoming more human (the evolution model) these (once originally more complex) apes are degenerating towards their current position (becoming more ape-like. I realize this sounds like a contradiction in terms for an ape to become more ape-like, but I mean this in the respect that they are degenerating into what we consider ape like (extant) qualities).)"

Why yes it is, quelle surprise!

Well, we tested your hypothesis by looking at several other early hominins and it was found wanting, the scientific method in action... now it's time for you to formulate a new hypothesis I think.

 

[xianghua]

"can be"?
So, it doesn't have to?

You're gonna need a defenition that's a wee bit more bulletproof.

i think that its 95% safe to say that its a perfect definition.

 

[xianghua]

A rather meaningless answer, as we have no way of determining whether two animals were able to interbreed in their initial creation.

no. you asked for definition. so i bring you one.

But I notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. Can you tell us how we can figure out if two different animals are of the same kind or not?

in most cases we can by 2 ways: the ability to interbreed and by looking at very similar morphology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i think that its 95% safe to say that its a perfect definition.

I think it's 100% safe to say, that it isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. you asked for definition. so i bring you one.

An utterly useless one, since it doesn't allow us at all to determine if two random organisms are the "same kind" or not.

in most cases we can by 2 ways: the ability to interbreed

But your definition stated that interbreeding isn't necessarily a determining factor, which means that we only are left with the following:

and by looking at very similar morphology.

Primates have very similar morphology.
Mammals have very similar morphology.

So I guess all mammals are the same kind.
But then, mammals and reptiles also have very similar morphology.
So I guess all mammals and reptiles are the same kind.

But then, the same goes for reptiles and amphibians.

So, I guess al vertebrates are the same kind.

Cool.

I can get on board with that.

 

[Heissonear]

I am still waiting on you to explain how the fossils in the "feet to flippers" picture should change before you'll accept them as transitionals.

I have been waiting for weeks now.

You are in no position to make demands, until you come clean.

The below is where the feet to flippers fossils came from. The name and semi-appearance of what the creatures look liked.

One creature, like the Rimingtoncetidae, is shown to evolve from the Ambulocetidae.

Where are the fossils between them to show the morphological changes?

As I stated while in academia: "Teach, where are the fossils between the ones listed?"

They are missing. They do not exist.

Such is the same for all textbooks and publications macro-assemblages illustrations, they have fossils assembled to show which fossil are claimed to evolve from the adjacent fossils, but no inbetween fossils showing the actual evolution in physical realm evidence.

Evolution lacks the very evidence that is needed to prove it happened.

Godless naturalistic man has assembled the fossil assemblages but lacks the very evidence one evolved into the other.

Evolution is based on conjecture. It takes belief to accept evolution.

This applies to everyone who promotes evolution.

 

[Kylie]

no. you asked for definition. so i bring you one.

But since we have no way to test if they could breed in their original creation, it doesn't do us any good, does it?

So it's meaningless.

in most cases we can by 2 ways: the ability to interbreed and by looking at very similar morphology.

By this logic, a marsupial mouse is the same kind as a regular mouse.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The below is where the feet to flippers fossils came from. The name and semi-appearance of what the creatures look liked.

View attachment 243521

One creature, like the Rimingtoncetidae, is shown to evolve from the Ambulocetidae.

Where are the fossils between them to show the morphological changes?

As I stated while in academia: "Teach, where are the fossils between the ones listed?"

They are missing. They do not exist.

Such is the same for all textbooks and publications macro-assemblages illustrations, they have fossils assembled to show which fossil are claimed to evolve from the adjacent fossils, but no inbetween fossils showing the actual evolution in physical realm evidence.

Evolution lacks the very evidence that is needed to prove it happened.

Godless naturalistic man has assembled the fossil assemblages but lacks the very evidence one evolved into the other.

Evolution is based on conjecture. It takes belief to accept evolution.

This applies to everyone who promotes evolution.

You are still not answering the question.

Why aren't the 2 fossils in the middle of the picture not examples of transitionals between the ones on the far left and right?

If the one on the right evolved from the one on the left, wouldn't you expect to find fossils like those in the middle?
How are those fossils, not transitional from the one on the left to the one on the right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So by your logic, lions and tigers are the same species because they can give birth to fertile offspring? (Yes, Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!, so don't try that way to get out of it.)

Absolutely!

Of course, if you actually had any idea how evolution actually works, you'd know that the point I was making was that there are significant differences between the species (due to beak shape, habitat, etc), but these differences have not yet gotten to the point where they are genetically incompatible. However, if they are typically isolated populations (such as living on two different islands and the crossing from one to the other is not often made) then they will continue their separate ways to speciation.

Oh please, the DNA data showed their genes were thoroughly mixed and the grants recorded several instances of them doing just that which led to the different beak sizes....

Isolated, lol.

American Indians were isolated for close to 10,000 years. I don’t see you trying to claim they are a separate species....

Your reasonings are happenstance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are still not answering the question.

Why aren't the 2 fossils in the middle of the picture not examples of transitionals between the ones on the far left and right?

If the one on the right evolved from the one on the left, wouldn't you expect to find fossils like those in the middle?
How are those fossils, not transitional from the one on the left to the one on the right?

Let’s just assume they are.

Why assume they are separate species?

Isn’t the German Shepard transitional between the wolf and poodle?

Yet same species......

So variation in Kind, even assuming your best case scenario..... not evolution.....

Not that I believe your walking whale scenario in the slightest.

So flippers evolved into feet, then feet devolved into flippers?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you can only believe 1/4 of what you are told, the rest is imagination as always....

 

[xianghua]

But since we have no way to test if they could breed in their original creation, it doesn't do us any good, does it?

so what? its also true for the field of biology. we cant always determine if 2 creatures are the same species or not.

By this logic, a marsupial mouse is the same kind as a regular mouse.

no. since marsupial mouse has several features that a real mouse doesnt have. this is why i used the words "very similar". or i should use the words "almost identical". i also said that we cant always know it for sure. only in most cases.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But since we have no way to test if they could breed in their original creation, it doesn't do us any good, does it?

So it's meaningless.

Wouldn’t do any good if we could test it. Those finches are doing it right in front of their noses. So any supposition is totally meaningless since they won’t even accept what is right in front of their noses....

By this logic, a marsupial mouse is the same kind as a regular mouse.

Are you suggesting they are potentially capable of interbreeding?

The Bible makes it clear there are several Kind of bird and even several Kind of grasshopper. So similarity in appearance does not necessitate the same Kind.

But yes, I know, evolutionists having 26 definitions of species is ok, while creationists are forbidden to have more than one. Sigh....

 

[Heissonear]

You are still not answering the question.

Why aren't the 2 fossils in the middle of the picture not examples of transitionals between the ones on the far left and right?

If the one on the right evolved from the one on the left, wouldn't you expect to find fossils like those in the middle?
How are those fossils, not transitional from the one on the left to the one on the right?

Face up.

Where are the missing fossils.

Can't hide from "lack of evidence". You need to face the conjecture within accepting evolution.

You want to chose the missing fossils are not needed.

To explain away the missing fossils. Bad scientist.

 

[Heissonear]

Let’s just assume they are.

Why assume they are separate species?

Isn’t the German Shepard transitional between the wolf and poodle?

Yet same species......

So variation in Kind, even assuming your best case scenario..... not evolution.....

Not that I believe your walking whale scenario in the slightest.

So flippers evolved into feet, then feet devolved into flippers?

Without fossil evidence showing evolution between creatures, one cannot claim evolution as factual. Some still try.