Subduction Zone
Regular Member
You are essentially arguing that Americans cannot be descended from Europeans since there are still Europeans. That is not a problem.
Upvote
0
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.
You are essentially arguing that Americans cannot be descended from Europeans since there are still Europeans. That is not a problem.that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil". more than that: we can also find transitional form between designed objects. but of course that it doesnt prove they evolved from each other, even if they were able to reproduce:
(image from Commercial Transportation Insurance)
If your understanding of evolution is so poor how do you ever expect to argue against it? The theory of evolution says that a dog cannot evolve into a cat. Please brush up on the concept of cladistics.variations among creatures is a fact (variations of dogs for instance). but the claim that a dog can evolve into something different (say a cat) isnt a fact but a theory.
No, you really really do not understand the theory at all.thanks but i know very well about evolution. what i said is true: according to evolution there is no problem that a dog will evolve into a cat or any other creature. i also gave it just as an example, it can be any other creature.
Steven M. Stanley, American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist (Macroevolution): Pattern and Process, p. 39) “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition, and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”
that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
If your understanding of evolution is so poor how do you ever expect to argue against it?
Some have the excuse to be new at debating evolution. But not so in this case. How many times does one have to repeat failed and false arguments before a person is called a liar?Although if creationists had a decent understanding of evolution, they'd probably be a lot less likely to try to argue against it.
Bit of a catch-22, that.
Prominent researchers who are evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould that examine the observable evidence state that not just a few species but most, some argue all life, appear abruptly with no transitional forms, then exhibit stasis throughout their history of existence!
that problem is that this fish actually appearing after the first tetrapod fossils:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
thus it cant be consider as a "transitional fossil".
From my experience being reported to the Mods: You may never call somebody a liar - that will get you a slap and your post removed. You may call their arguments lies all you want, as long as you have grounds for making that claim.Some have the excuse to be new at debating evolution. But not so in this case. How many times does one have to repeat failed and false arguments before a person is called a liar?
From my experience being reported to the Mods: You may never call somebody a liar - that will get you a slap and your post removed. You may call their arguments lies all you want, as long as you have grounds for making that claim.
Although the argument is a lie, the person making it may or may not being aware of this and therefore may or may not be a liar. The important thing to remember is that you're addressing the content of the post, not the person.If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?
No. Many people repeat lies without realizing that they are doing so. I would say that most creationists new to debating could use this excuse. They are at worst "liars by proxy". But they themselves are not trying to deceive. They truly believe the nonsense that they post.If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?
A peacock was made finished.
Likewise, a rose
The 'eyespots' of peacock plumage, among other bird ornamentation and displays, were one of the reasons Darwin developed his thinking on sexual selection as a part of the wider theory of evolution.
Okay, didn't know a rose was a hybrid. Hybrid or what, two different kinds of flowers? You realize my point, He made everything finished. Than obviously, "micro-evolution" - changes within the kind took place. Adaptive mechanisms ... Of course as we see in the 135+ kinds of dogs that were bred from the wolf, God has allowed us to share in the creativity of nature: flowers, dogs, etc.The modern rose is a hybrid of a hybrid of a hybrid, brought about by deliberate interference of humans over (at least) 5000 years and bearing only the most passing resemblance to its ancient forebears.
As @Bungle_Bear and @Subduction Zone have already pointed out, one may unknowingly repeat lies and thus not be a liar. What some posters in this context are, however, is plagiarists. Why? Because they repeat these lies as if they were original thoughts and objections of their own. Ultimately is seems to come down to inadequate education in the matter of debating technique.If a liar is defined as 'a person who tells lies', then isn't saying one's argument is a lie the same thing as calling them a liar?
Darwin was confused, leaned on his own understanding, which was a stretch of his imagination. Didn't he think a cell was just a jelly-like substance with little complexity. All things are complex, even the Paremecium, it's flagella is more complex than the space shuttle.
Okay, didn't know a rose was a hybrid. Hybrid or what, two different kinds of flowers? You realize my point, He made everything finished. Than obviously, "micro-evolution" - changes within the kind took place. Adaptive mechanisms ... Of course as we see in the 135+ kinds of dogs that were bred from the wolf, God has allowed us to share in the creativity of nature: flowers, dogs, etc.
Of course as we see in the 135+ kinds of dogs that were bred from the wolf
You claim "Wikipedia is a reliable source when used correctly."? There is no such clarification in their disclaimer! What they do admit on their website "Wikipedia is not a reliable source."along with the reason why it is not they say "caveat lector" Latin meaning "let the buyer beware"...I believe them!Your last statement is wrong. Wikipedia is a reliable source when used correctly.
And you are behind the times in regard to what paleontologists think as well. There have been many new discoveries since their times. Many "gaps" have been filled in. This thread is about another filled gap.
And of course you do not understand what Stanley and Gould were claiming. They were stating that there are long periods of stasis along with short periods of rapid evolution. When they claimed that species appeared suddenly they were talking about geologic time. And they were essentially correct. Their work allowed people that followed to concentrate their studies in the areas of rapid evolution. Concentrating on those time periods allowed specific gaps to be filled in. Tiktaalik is the best known example of using a focused search for a transitional species.
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?