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.
A4C said:Is it possible to see samples of copy 56, 57, and 58 anywhere?
Have any transitional photo copies turned up?
ObviouslyNorseman said:The photo copier mutates the copies from their originals. It doesn't select which ones should be copied and which should be dropped from the copy pool. You're missing a key ingredient there.
A4C said:Obviously
All the photo copiers I know dont destroy the original that was fed into it to copy.
Carico said:"Natural selection"?" That is again a term made up by evolutionists to try to explain things they don't understand.
It's simply common sense that cell characteristics don't spontaneously and miraculously appear. They had to come from somewhere.
There's a reason that a dog & a human being, for example, cannot mate and produce offspring. We were not created that way.
A sperm seeks out an egg from its own species and has a natural barrier against an egg of a different species. And that is nothing than man created.
The cell is the basis of life form and it has billions of characteristics that have a life of their own. A bacterial cell, for example, was programmed to survive. Therefore, it will eventually develop antibodies against whatever medication is invented to kill it which is why so many bacterial cells are becoming resistant to medications.
Man simply cannot manipulate life without producing even worse consequences.
The worst thing that man can do is to underestimate the design he uses for his very inventions because cells have a life of their own.
pantsman52 said:Living things don't live forever, so I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.
A4C said:But dont living things produce like themselves. Why is there none of these 100's of mutatation originators still living or why is there no fossil record of them? (except a lot of hand waving)
A4C said:Why do a proliferation of species just appear on the "fossil record" with no indication that anything like them ever existed prior
Keith B. Miller said:
Keith B. Miller said:fossil record provides persuasive evidence for macroevolutionary change and common descent. The pattern of appearance of fossil species through geologic time is critical for reconstructing evolutionary relationships. In addition, the fossil record may also contribute to our understanding of the tempo and mode of evolution, and help select between competing macroevolutionary theories.
Keith B. Miller said:However, before the fossil record can be applied to these questions, two critically important topics need to be addressed. The first concerns the completeness and resolution of the fossil record, and the second concerns taxonomic procedures. Taxonomy refers to the methods by which species are defined and grouped into a hierarchy of categories.
Nature of the Fossil Record
There are two opposite errors which need to be countered about the fossil record: (1) that it is so incomplete as to be of no value in interpreting patterns and trends in the history of life, and (2) that it is so good that we should expect a relatively complete record of the details of evolutionary transitions within most lineages.
What then is the nature of the fossil record? It can be confidently stated that only a very small fraction of the species that once lived on Earth has been preserved in the rock record and subsequently discovered and described by science. Our knowledge of the history of life can be put into perspective by a comparison with our knowledge of living organisms. About 1.5 million living species have been described by biologists, while paleontologists have catalogued only about 250,000 fossil species representing over 540 million years of Earth history (Erwin, 1993)! Why such a poor record?
Limits of the Fossil Record
Soft-bodied or thin-shelled organisms have little or no chance of preservation, and the majority of species in living marine communities are soft-bodied. Consider that there are living today about 14 phyla of worms comprising nearly half of all animal phyla, yet only one, the Annelida, has a significant fossil record. The inadequacy of the fossil record to preserve with any completeness the evolutionary history of soft-bodied organisms can be illustrated by the Conodonta. Originally assigned to their own phylum, they are now believed to belong to the cordates. These soft-bodied animals are represented by tiny tooth-like phosphatic fossils which are very abundant in sedimentary rocks extending over about 300 million years of Earth history, and have a worldwide distribution. Conodonts are a very important group of marine fossils for paleontologists, yet until only very recently the organism to which they belonged was completely unknown. Specimens of the worm-like conodont animal have now been discovered in Carboniferous, Ordovician, and Silurian rocks (Briggs et al., 1983; Mikulic et al., 1985; Aldridge & Purnell, 1996). Only a handful of specimens is now known from a very large and diverse group of marine animals known to be extremely abundant and widespread over a tremendous length of time!
The discovery of new soft-bodied fossil localities is always met with great enthusiasm. These localities typically turn up new species with unusual morphologies, and new higher taxa are built from a few specimens! Such localities are also erratically and widely spaced in geologic time between which essentially no soft-bodied fossil record exists.
Even those organisms with preservable hard parts are unlikely to be preserved under "normal" conditions. Recent studies of the fate of clam shells in shallow coastal waters reveal that shells are rapidly destroyed by scavenging, boring, chemical dissolution, and breakage. Rare events such as major storms appear to be required to incorporate shells into the sedimentary record. Getting terrestrial vertebrate material into the fossil record is even more difficult.
The limitations of the vertebrate fossil record can be easily illustrated. The famous fossil Archaeopteryx, occurring in a rock unit renowned for its fossil preservation, is represented by only seven known specimens, of which only two are essentially complete. Considering how many individuals of this genus probably lived and died over the thousands or millions of years of its existence, these few known specimens give some feeling for how few individuals are actually preserved as fossils and subsequently discovered. Yet this example actually represents an unusual wealth of material. The great majority of fossil vertebrate species are represented by only very fragmentary remains, and many are described on the basis of single specimens or from single localities. Complete skeletons are exceptionally rare. For many fossil taxa, particularly small mammals, the only fossils are teeth and jaw fragments. If so many fossil vertebrate species are represented by single specimens, the number of completely unknown species must be enormous!
In addition to these preservational biases, the erosion, deformation, and metamorphism of originally fossiliferous sedimentary rocks have eliminated significant portions of the fossil record over geologic time. Furthermore, much of the fossil-bearing sedimentary record is hidden in the subsurface, or located in poorly accessible or little studied geographic areas. For these reasons, of those once living species actually preserved in the fossil record, only a small portion has been discovered and described by science.
Because of the biases of the fossil record, the most abundant and geographically widespread species of hard part-bearing organisms would tend to be best represented. Also, because evolutionary change is probably most rapid within small isolated populations, species within rapidly evolving lineages are less likely to be preserved in the fossil record. In addition, the completeness of the fossil record improves up the taxonomic hierarchy (Erwin, 1993). A smaller proportion of once-living species is preserved than genera, of genera than families, of families than orders, etc. As a result we can better discern the general patterns of evolutionary change than the population-by-population or species-by-species transitions.
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:Although Im sure that, with over 5000 posts under your belt you have been told this before, I will sincerely try to answer you question anyway.
I think the thing preventing you from understanding the process is the understanding that this took time and transitional forms to get from ape to humans. As genetic mutations occurred in separated populations of apes, they started to diverge. Once there was an initial speciation then all it took was time and more speciation to get to human form.
The Hominid Transitional Timeline
At the time Charles Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species (1859), we had no fossils of Human ancestors. Through tremendous effort in searching for fossils the next chart can show about 13-14 "links" between modern Humans and our Gorilla cousins, going back about 5 of the 10 million years to our split in lineage. For each of the species in this chart there are from 5 to 500 fossil or sub-fossil specimens. We have the most specimens for Neanderthals. As new fossil sites are discovered it may be expected that our confidence in this chart will grow (or it will be modified) and that even more intermediate links will appear on it.
Indeed, since I wrote that paragraph for my Introduction to Evolution page, a range of new fossils have been found, including: Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, 5.2-5.8 mybp in Ethiopia, Kenyanthropus platyops, 3.5 mybp in Kenya, Orrorin tugenensis, 6 mybp, also in Kenya, and Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 6.5 mybp in Chad. The graphic timeline shown here is modified from one used by the BBC in several recent articles. My larger graphic just below, based upon 1995 data, will have to be modified to include the new fossils after the debate within paleoanthropology reaches some degree of consensus as to the validity of the taxa and their importance.
In the graphic above only fossil genera are shown with a timeline. In the one below, closely following one produced in the journal Nature, all of the commonly discussed species are shown but without attempting to illustrate hypothesized lines of descent. Notice that the species designated as Australopithecus habilis (below) is called Homo habilis in the cladogram that follows it, and three species of Paranthropus are referred to Australopithecus in the following cladogram. These are taxonomic decisions made by different authors.
Note that as many as 4 or 5 species of early hominids were living at the same time. Observe also that, in at least a half-dozen instances, a parental species continued to exist for a lengthy period of time after a daughter species evolved. The arrangement shown here is not accepted by all paleoanthropologists. For instance, there are some who would merge H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis, considering them as one species. Also, there are those who maintain the H. neanderthalensis is a subspecies of H. sapiens while many others disagree.
Transitionals in the Human Fossil Series
The transitional series does not only include skulls, of course. While skulls provide evidence for gradual evolution of many features such as brain size, other bones involving the pelvis, knees and feet show us the transition to bipedality (upright stance) and increase in stature. Below the next picture and its links you will find the sections for all hominid species
A. Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B. Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C. Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D. Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E. H. habilis, OH24 , 1.8 My
F. H. ergaster (H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
G. H. heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300-125ky
H. Homo neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70ky
I. H. neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Sts, 60ky
J. H. neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45ky
K. Homo sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30ky
L. Homo sapiens, modern
SOURCE: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm
Carico said:But what you don't understand is that populations cannot evolve without individuals being born. It is a virtual impossibility because people are born individually. So until you can understand how humans and animals are reproduced, you cannot understand how populations evolve! I suggest you take a beginning course on how people get born.
Carico said:The skulls you showed aren't even complete skulls! So how can scientists possibly know what they represent when criminals can't even be convicted with completed skulls as evidence! In addition, how in the world do scientists know there was hair all over the bodies of "primitive" humans? There is no way to prove that humans were covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it. So take all the hair off primitve man and he doesn't look much different than men do today.
But this is a perfect example of how "findings" can be colored by previous conceptions and conclusions can be drawn that are vastly different than reality. Since evolutionists have decided that humans came from apes, then the things they find are put into this previous conception much like an investigator who has already decided a man is guilty and doesn't look around for other explantions of a crime. This is how innocent people can be convicted of a crime and how preposterous theories can be perpetuated. The bible describes a tribe of giants, much like Andre the Giant, who once roamed the earth. Those skulls could easily be those of the giants. If scientists were truly "scientific" and unbiased, they would look at all possibilities. That's what science is supposed to be about. But they don't. They have smply decided that men came from apes even though it contrdicts the way humans & animals reproduce, & thus can only see one possibility in their findings.
mikeynov said:Do you have any idea how much time you wasted of people honestly trying to educate you on this topic? You should be ashamed.
I'd recommend everybody ignore Carico here on in.
A4C said:Obviously
All the photo copiers I know dont destroy the original that was fed into it to copy.
A4C said:But dont living things produce like themselves. Why is there none of these 100's of mutatation originators still living or why is there no fossil record of them? (except a lot of hand waving)
Carico said:The skulls you showed aren't even complete skulls! So how can scientists possibly know what they represent when criminals can't even be convicted with completed skulls as evidence! In addition, how in the world do scientists know there was hair all over the bodies of "primitive" humans? There is no way to prove that humans were covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it. So take all the hair off primitve man and he doesn't look much different than men do today.
Although it may be required by your intellectual limitations to look at such evidence and attribute it to magically created giants, the men and women you have actually studied and devoted their lives to this field have much more valuable insight in the matter. Until you actually muster up enough intellectual fortitude to be able to master any area of evolution, you opinion will hold little weight in comparison. Even as a layman you should be able to grasp these most elementary of presentations on the subject. However, you have shown that you either have no ability to comprehend the subject or are willfully ignorant in the matter. Either way, it would only be polite to stop wasting the time of those that would help you while spreading your religious propaganda.Carico said:
But this is a perfect example of how "findings" can be colored by previous conceptions and conclusions can be drawn that are vastly different than reality. Since evolutionists have decided that humans came from apes, then the things they find are put into this previous conception much like an investigator who has already decided a man is guilty and doesn't look around for other explantions of a crime. This is how innocent people can be convicted of a crime and how preposterous theories can be perpetuated. The bible describes a tribe of giants, much like Andre the Giant, who once roamed the earth. Those skulls could easily be those of the giants. If scientists were truly "scientific" and unbiased, they would look at all possibilities. That's what science is supposed to be about. But they don't. They have smply decided that men came from apes even though it contrdicts the way humans & animals reproduce, & thus can only see one possibility in their findings.
Carico said:Sorry, but your explanations are contradictory and blindsighted. But I guess you'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. And I guarantee the experience won't be a pleasant one.
Carico said:The skulls you showed aren't even complete skulls! So how can scientists possibly know what they represent when criminals can't even be convicted with completed skulls as evidence!
In addition, how in the world do scientists know there was hair all over the bodies of "primitive" humans? There is no way to prove that humans were covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it. So take all the hair off primitve man and he doesn't look much different than men do today.
But this is a perfect example of how "findings" can be colored by previous conceptions and conclusions can be drawn that are vastly different than reality. Since evolutionists have decided that humans came from apes,
The bible describes a tribe of giants, much like Andre the Giant, who once roamed the earth. Those skulls could easily be those of the giants. If scientists were truly "scientific" and unbiased, they would look at all possibilities.
That's what science is supposed to be about. But they don't. They have smply decided that men came from apes even though it contrdicts the way humans & animals reproduce, & thus can only see one possibility in their findings.
Even the shredder doesn't obliterate the evidence that the copy actually existed.Nathan Poe said:No, that's what the shredder is for.
Carico said:Sorry, but your explanations are contradictory and blindsighted. But I guess you'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. And I guarantee the experience won't be a pleasant one.
Carico said:Sorry, but your explanations are contradictory and blindsighted. But I guess you'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. And I guarantee the experience won't be a pleasant one.
Pete Harcoff said:I love how it all comes down to a threat. Way to represent!
Carico said:Sorry, but your explanations are contradictory and blindsighted. But I guess you'll have to wait until you die to find out who created man. And I guarantee the experience won't be a pleasant one.
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?