Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Kenny'sID]

No, I didn't. The things that lived at one time looked like this, and the things that lived at a different time looked like that. Living things changed over time.

You are sill talking, just show us, and explain how you drew the conclusion. IOW, proof that your view of it is truly exactly what is going on there. Then you need to deal with the arguments that ensue.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are sill talking, just show us, and explain how you drew the conclusion. IOW, proof that your view of it is truly exactly what is going on there. Then you need to deal with the arguments that ensue.

There are a vast number of places where you could learn about the evidence if you were motivated and interested.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are a vast number of places where you could learn about the evidence if you were motivated and interested.

It would be revealing to go back through threads and see just how many time similar offers have been made to him, all of them ignored or rejected outright. However, it is scarcely worth the effort, since his intransigent refusal to learn is well recognised by regular members.

 

[pitabread]

And I, yours, as in comments such as that instead of something relevant like showing us form start to date, how evolution is a fact.

But you don't care about that. You've expressed repeatedly you have no desire to learn about evolution.

Like I said, we're well familiar with your shtick.

 

[pitabread]

There are a vast number of places where you could learn about the evidence if you were motivated and interested.

Of course, we all know he's not. And therein lies the rub. :/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"The main scientific objection to evolution is not about the whether change occurs through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so use of the terms 'micro-' and 'macro-evolution' should be discouraged). It isn't even about whether natural selection happens. The key issue is the type of change required - to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA 'letters' stored in each human nucleus convey a great deal more information than the half a million DNA 'letters' of the simplest self-reproducing organism... all the alleged 'proofs of evolution in action' to date do not show functional new information added to the genes. Rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of information." - Jonathon Sarfati

[/QUOTE]
That is a misunderstanding of what information is (probably due to an equivocation of the physical and colloquial meanings of the word). Classical information is some particular arrangement of the elements of a system. The amount of information a system can represent is the number of different ways its elements can be arranged (including the various states those elements can be in).

Particular information can be meaningful in particular contexts. Colloquially, we tend to only use the word for information we find meaningful - but since meaning is contextual and a matter of interpretation, this leads to confusion about what is and isn't information. For example, the features of a natural landscape contain quite different meaningful information for a geologist and an artist. A written text has different information for someone who knows the language, a graphologist, a statistician, and a materials scientist.

With respect to DNA, new information appears every time a rearrangement of the bases occurs, e.g. a mutation. Sometimes this new information is functional in the context of cell activity, e.g. it can be transcribed into a novel protein sequence, or modifies the regulatory area of the genome; and sometimes it isn't functional, e.g. a change in some non-coding, non-regulatory area that has no effect at all. [note - I'm using a broad sense of 'functional' here, to mean. 'has some effect']

Of the new functional information, some will be detrimental to cell activity, some neutral, and some beneficial.

Some mutations involve the duplication of chunks of DNA, from tiny pieces to whole chromosomes. In these cases, the new information doesn't just replace what was there before, but adds to the information capacity of the genome.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

im not sure that i got all of your points (because of my english probably) but if you agree about the multiverse then anything can happen since we have infinite number of tries.

I agree that multiverses are a speculative possibility, i.e. not against the laws of physics as they currently stand. But whether there would be an infinite number of universes in them or not is moot - and depends, to some degree, on the particular multiverse hypothesis you're considering.

However, as I already said, even in an infinite multiverse where the most improbable events happen in an infinite number of universes, there will still be vastly more universes where they don't happen; relative probabilities don't change just because the context is infinite.

 

[Speedwell]

You are sill talking, just show us, and explain how you drew the conclusion. IOW, proof that your view of it is truly exactly what is going on there. Then you need to deal with the arguments that ensue.

It's a fact that there were species once living on the Earth but do so no longer. The fossil record is clear enough on that point.
It's also a fact that many species now living on the Earth have not always lived on the Earth. The confirmation of that is that new species have been observed to form since humans began to interest themselves in the question. Further confirmation is added by the observation that many living species are absent from the fossil record.
One possible conclusion from those two facts is that life has changed and diversified over time.
What is your argument?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Anyway, once we determine evolution is valid to begin with, then we can move on to the OP.

I'll keep an eye open.

 

[Speedwell]

Anyway, once we determine evolution is valid to begin with, then we can move on to the OP.

I'll keep an eye open.

So do you agree with the conclusion that life on Earth has changed and diversified over time?
Do you take exception to either of the two facts which support that conclusion?

 

[Jimmy D]

You are sill talking, just show us, and explain how you drew the conclusion. IOW, proof that your view of it is truly exactly what is going on there. Then you need to deal with the arguments that ensue.

You can’t possibly think that everyone has forgotten your routine, so what’s your motivation for posting this?

 

[pitabread]

Anyway, once we determine evolution is valid to begin with, then we can move on to the OP.

That has already been determined. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyway, once we determine evolution is valid to begin with, then we can move on to the OP.

I'll keep an eye open.

It was determined to be valid well over one hundred years ago. That makes using a computer and complaining about evolution more than just a little bit hypocritical.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You can’t possibly think that everyone has forgotten your routine, so what’s your motivation for posting this?

Trolling is fun!

 

[Qwertyui0p]

LOL! You are not even trying. That man may have a PhD in chemistry, but he has to deny almost all of science. He is of all things a Young Earth Creationist. There is no real difference between YEC's and Flat Earthers, they are all extreme science deniers.[/QUOTE]
The point is, speciation isn't proof of evolution, it is in fact part of the creationist model. And can you please stop comparing creationists to flat earthers, it is inaccurate.

 

[pitabread]

The point is, speciation isn't proof of evolution, it is in fact part of the creationist model.

There is no singular creationist "model". In fact, I've seen some creationists flat out deny speciation.

And can you please stop comparing creationists to flat earthers, it is inaccurate.

There is a continuum of science denial. Flat Earthers may be at the far end of that continuum, but creationists are pretty close (especially YECs).

 

[Gene2memE]

After better than a decade conversing with creationists and flat earthers of all stripes, I'd argue that YECs are actually far, far worse than flat earthers.

Both exhibit extreme cases of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, emotional reasoning and attribution bias.

However, the flat earther (generally) owns their own reasoning. The YEC, on the other hand, has additional avenues to escape - 'God works in mysterious ways', 'It says so in the Bible, therefore its true', ''You just have to have faith', 'You just want to sin' ect, ect, ad infinitum.

You can be a flat earther and only deny a few basic facts of the universe. If you're a YEC, you really need to be in disagreement with nearly every field (but not all) of the physical sciences.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The point is, speciation isn't proof of evolution,

Can you point to a post where somebody other than a creationist has made that claim, or do you admit this is just a convenient strawman?

it is in fact part of the creationist model.

How can speciation, which requires populations of living organisms to evolve into new species, be part of a model which says every species was made as it is now?

 

[Kenny'sID]

A lot of "evolution is a fact" talk, yet, no one will put it all on the table for discussion...wonder why that is?

 

[Ophiolite]

A lot of "evolution is a fact" talk, yet, no one will put it all on the table for discussion...wonder why that is?

Balderdash. Please stop making false statements. Do you want me to provide a list of all the times you've been given explanations,or pointed towards resources then turned round and ignored them, only to repeat the request a day, a week, or even an hour later? It is quite simply an unending stream of cynical goading on your part. Shame on you!