Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Geeze, I need to post when I can pay attention to what I am writing. Yes.
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 may have mispoken earlier:
"No one NOW thinks Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of lobed-fin fish."--Oncedeceived
Did you mean to say tetrapods instead of lobed-fin fish?
Good thing too, since that's not a claim of evolution.
Having children is not a requirement for a fossil to be classified as a transitional.
Your classification of 99% of all biologists and geologists as storytellers and liars, or stupid, doesn't carry much weight when we consider your lack of knowledge of what the theory of evolution entails.
The display of the skulls is not the entirety of evidence garnered from the discovery, unearthing and study of the skulls and the locations from which they came. That you don't seem to know this, is evidence enough that your opinion on the matter cannot be trusted to come close to reality.
Watch those goalposts move! I never said it would predict when rodents will evolve. As we know, a priori, we can't know any group will or won't evolve.
Let me be more precise then. There is no evidence that the creatures that owned these skulls were of a species that changed AT ALL.
That these skulls are evidence of transition is not something that would stand in any court as proof of any evolving. They are static examples of creatures that once lived.
Geeze, I need to post when I can pay attention to what I am writing. Yes.
You just implicitly admitted here that the discovery of Tiktaalik was lucky. If there is a "degree of error of 20 million years", then how could Shubin have possibly have known to hone in on the precise rock layer? When, according to yourself, a Tiktaalik-like body-plan could have just as easily been found 20 million years earlier, or 20 million years later.. that's practically the entire Devonian period!
Sarah you have to really sit back and think about your reasoning here, because it is a trainwreck of flawed logic.
It gets even worse for you. You say a 20 million year difference is "not significant"... okay, if 20 MY is negligible, why not 30 MY, or 40, or 50 million years? Is being 50 million years off significant? You have no idea.. you have no standard, you're just making things up.
Again proving my point. Evolution theory is just a wishy-washy fog with no robust constraints or significant predictive power. You yourself demonstrate that, while groping around for some solid internal structure to the theory, you find nothing but vapors.
This also gets back to the platypus. The monotreme clade sits between the placental mammals and our common ancestor shared with reptiles. Living monotremes still have transitional features, such as egg laying, cloaca, and rudimentary mammary glands/structures. Those transitional features were passed down to monotremes from the common ancestor that they share with us.
From the 1800's? We have learned a lot about vertebrate anatomy since then. We are talking about the modern theory, afterall.
Again, you asked for an example of speciation at the very beginning, not 5 million years worth of evolution.
I just gave you the evidence of it happening in real time. That evidence is the genetic divergence of the two populations of apple maggot flies.
We have the evidence that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. You just refuse to address it.
Let me be more precise then. There is no evidence that the creatures that owned these skulls were of a species that changed AT ALL. These creatures could have lived and died and then their species may have became extinct and there is no evidence that one is the ancestor of the other.
The species would have had to reproduce to do so....
Second, I agree that the majority of "educated" people now follow this belief.
However, truth is not a democracy.
That these skulls are evidence of transition is not something that would stand in any court as proof of any evolving. They are static examples of creatures that once lived.
That is the reality.
Populations evolve, not individuals.
Your objection to the idea of "transitional fossils" is completely baseless and exhibits a clear misunderstanding of what a transitional actually is.
It's not a belief. It's a scientific theory. Which is not the same.
Scientific theories are not to be "believed". Rather, they are to be accepted or rejected through an intellectually honest evaluation of the evidence, its uses, its explanatory power.
Evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Correct. And "truth" is also not science's business. "truth" implies things that are certain, proven.
Science is about zero-ing in on "truth" and never assuming that you have arrived.
What features should a fossil have before you would accept it as a transitional fossil?
The idea of populations evolving, to me, is much more difficult than an individual. I say this because it is far more conceivable for an individual to mutate but to have a whole population do the same? Not buying that.
To accept an idea or statement I would have to believe it. This is just double talk. Some say evolution is a fact. Others say "science cannot prove anything". It's a theory, now it's not, it's proven, but science proves nothing... what is the definition of "this word or that word".....round and round it goes.
Yep, it is. And, all these scientists went to and accredited institution of post secondary education that force the TOE down the students throats. From young children we are inundated with this farce and if.....if anyone goes against this sacred cow of a religion they may be refused a passing grade, refused accreditation, refused a degree, removed from a position of employment, chastised by their peers, have papers and presentations severely attacked...face it, the TOE is a strong brick wall of intellectual and educational strong holds that control the "truth".
And, once again, truth is not a democracy. Neither is it right because some council refuses someones observations that contradict the TOE farce.
Unless they contradict the status quo and the TOE.
Again, unless it is rocking the boat, causes the TOE to be questioned, backs up the biblical account, shows that their is some force outside the natural realm of the science of today.
That's my point. You cannot show transition with a dead fossilized bone. It is "static" it shows one point in time. It can never tell you about it's father, it's mother and even more it's great grandfather or great grand daughter
The animal or creature existed. That's it.
Stalin tried it. It never worked.
Horses and Donkey's produce mules and Hinny's. In all these years we do not have a new species of mules, it is just a dead end. Such is the case. Humans and apes cannot even start the process. It's even more of a dead end.
The idea of populations evolving, to me, is much more difficult than an individual. I say this because it is far more conceivable for an individual to mutate but to have a whole population do the same? Not buying that.
To accept an idea or statement I would have to believe it. This is just double talk. Some say evolution is a fact. Others say "science cannot prove anything". It's a theory, now it's not, it's proven, but science proves nothing... what is the definition of "this word or that word".....round and round it goes.
Yep, it is. And, all these scientists went to and accredited institution of post secondary education that force the TOE down the students throats. From young children we are inundated with this farce and if.....if anyone goes against this sacred cow of a religion they may be refused a passing grade, refused accreditation, refused a degree, removed from a position of employment, chastised by their peers, have papers and presentations severely attacked...face it, the TOE is a strong brick wall of intellectual and educational strong holds that control the "truth".
And, once again, truth is not a democracy. Neither is it right because some council refuses someones observations that contradict the TOE farce.
That's my point. You cannot show transition with a dead fossilized bone.
It is "static" it shows one point in time. It can never tell you about it's father, it's mother and even more it's great grandfather or great grand daughter
Where in my quote below did I say that Humans cannot produce fertile offspring together????Humans can not produce fertile offspring together? Really?
Where in my quote below did I say that Humans cannot produce fertile offspring together????
JacksBratt said: ↑
Stalin tried it. It never worked.
Horses and Donkey's produce mules and Hinny's. In all these years we do not have a new species of mules, it is just a dead end. Such is the case. Humans and apes cannot even start the process. It's even more of a dead end.
Where did the horses and donkeys come from? If they came from horses, then donkeys are a new species since they can no longer produce fertile offspring with horses. If they came from donkeys, then horses are the new separate species. If they came from a common ancestor that was neither a horse nor a donkey, then we have two new species.
Horses are horses, donkey's are donkeys. Two different "kinds" of animals.
They are close enough to produce offspring, which are mules but the mule is not capable of any further offspring....
God made horses, God made donkeys.
Then how are they able to have offspring?
How is that possible? Are you saying that golden retrievers and huskies could be two differently created kinds? Afterall, you are now saying that different kinds can produce offspring.
Evidence?
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?