• 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.

How many steps does it take?

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
*sigh*... do you lack ANY reading comprehension? I asked you a question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?
You have repeatedly refused to answer this question and have pointedly made every attempt to AVOID answering this question.
Which proves one thing to me: you don't have any evidence for your claim. You have a claim, and a claim only. All you have repeatedly done is avoid answering, repeatedly bluster and posture for no reason whatsoever (this whole 'three strikes' obviously shows that you don't actually care about the discussion) and just wish for do nothing more than simply big up your own ego.

However, I fully endorse that idea that a person should be given a second chance. So, one more time: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist? If you actually answer this question, it will show to me that you're a person who wants to engage in a genuine scientific discussion. If you don't, then it shows that you don't actually care for a genuine scientific discussion and just want to inflate your own ego ("Oh, these evos won't answer this obviously rigged question. They must be scared of my knowledge!").

So far I have presented you with the odds against evolutionism and a method where a so-called transitional really isn't a transitional.....all you have done is swung and missed. Three times and now a fourth.

...but humor me...what would you accept as evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,400
31
Wales
✟423,906.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
So far I have presented you with the odds against evolutionism and a method where a so-called transitional really isn't a transitional.....all you have done is swung and missed. Three times and now a fourth.

...but humor me...what would you accept as evidence?

Simply stating that the odds are against evolution without actually SHOWING that the odds are against evolution is NOT EVIDENCE. Also, you are not the arbitrator of whether... whatever you're supposed to do in baseball. I specifically asked you to answer a question, and you have repeatedly refused to do so.

As for evidence that I would accept? I would accept a fossil lineage that shows (at least) three various fossils that belong to the same lineage. Take the whale for example, starting with Ambulocetus, then Basilosaurus, then modern whales. We can see transitional features in the lineage of the whale, specifically the nostrils moving up the skull from the front of the skull, a snout, to the position it is currently in as a blowhole, and also that we see the limbs transitioning from limbs with extant fingers (the proper name escapes me) in to the flippers that whales currently possess.
You would have to show a fossil of an animal that belongs to that lineage, that does not fit in to the lineage nor possess any of the features that exist in either Ambulocetus', Basilosaurus' or whales, but still fits in to that lineage.

I await your reply (if you have one).
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Simply stating that the odds are against evolution without actually SHOWING that the odds are against evolution is NOT EVIDENCE. Also, you are not the arbitrator of whether... whatever you're supposed to do in baseball. I specifically asked you to answer a question, and you have repeatedly refused to do so.

As for evidence that I would accept? I would accept a fossil lineage that shows (at least) three various fossils that belong to the same lineage. Take the whale for example, starting with Ambulocetus, then Basilosaurus, then modern whales. We can see transitional features in the lineage of the whale, specifically the nostrils moving up the skull from the front of the skull, a snout, to the position it is currently in as a blowhole, and also that we see the limbs transitioning from limbs with extant fingers (the proper name escapes me) in to the flippers that whales currently possess.
You would have to show a fossil of an animal that belongs to that lineage, that does not fit in to the lineage nor possess any of the features that exist in either Ambulocetus', Basilosaurus' or whales, but still fits in to that lineage.

I await your reply (if you have one).

I could show you skulls of dogs that if lined up in a supposed evolutionary line the snout gets longer.

But anyway....
Discussions of whale origins assume various extinct creatures were whale ancestors, an assumption often disproved as a result of more fossil finds. One ex- ample is mesonychids, which was shown not to be a viable whale transition after Archeocetes was discovered in Eocene strata. Another example is the whale putative ancestor, Basilosaurus, which was initially thought to be a serpent- like reptile but was later reclassified as a “whale-like” mammal (Evans, 1987, p. 2). This animal does not provide support for whale evolution, though, because no clear fossil connections exist between Basilosaurus and the Ar cheocetes and modern whales, whether toothed (Odontoceti) or baleen, a fact put bluntly by Gaskin.

Archaeoceti could not be considered as direct ancestors of either modern baleen whales or modern toothed whales.... It was unlikely that they gave rise to the ancestral forms of either group. The Archaeoceti may be regarded as a less successful independent line which died out perhaps 10 million years ago (Gaskin,1972, p. 3).

Fossil teeth are central to the whale fossil record. Unfortunately, this evidence is very problematic. For example, Pakice- tus teeth resemble those of Protocetus and Indocetus (Berta, 1995; Bajpai and Gingerich, 1998). Toothed whales first appeared in the fossil record in the Eocene, estimated by evolutionists to be 30 million geological years after the Archeocetes became extinct (Evans, 1987; Alexander, 1975). Evans concluded that the Eocene archeocete fossils were “replaced” by members of four different fossil whale orders in strata judged to be Oligocene. Two separate types of Odon- toceti—those with polyform teeth, such as the Squalodontidae, and others with no dental differentiation (monoform teeth)— may have existed. Only the monoform dentition groups still exist today.

Darwinists claim that whale teeth evolved from the “differentiated” con- dition found in fossil whales, to the

“undifferentiated” teeth found in modern Odontoceti. This evolution scenario requires a series of fossils linking a long serpent-like creature with tiny back legs (such as the Basilosaurus) to modern toothed whales. Furthermore, the com- parison of these unrelated and unlinked life-forms is not based on scientific data, and evidence exists that they were con- temporary with whales, thus could not be a whale precursor.

The claim that true polyform teeth exist in certain fossil Odontoceti requires more study (Ridgway, 1972). Toothed Squalodontidae fossils found in the late Oligocene possessed teeth grouped into functional incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. For this reason evolutionists are forced to claim that teeth became more numerous and less specialized as the pre-whales evolved into modern Odontoceti whales (Gaskin, 1972).
Staff edited to add link: Whale Evolution: A Whale of a Tale - PDF
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,400
31
Wales
✟423,906.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I could show you skulls of dogs that if lined up in a supposed evolutionary line the snout gets longer.

But anyway....
Discussions of whale origins assume various extinct creatures were whale ancestors, an assumption often disproved as a result of more fossil finds. One ex- ample is mesonychids, which was shown not to be a viable whale transition after Archeocetes was discovered in Eocene strata. Another example is the whale putative ancestor, Basilosaurus, which was initially thought to be a serpent- like reptile but was later reclassified as a “whale-like” mammal (Evans, 1987, p. 2). This animal does not provide support for whale evolution, though, because no clear fossil connections exist between Basilosaurus and the Ar cheocetes and modern whales, whether toothed (Odontoceti) or baleen, a fact put bluntly by Gaskin.

Archaeoceti could not be considered as direct ancestors of either modern baleen whales or modern toothed whales.... It was unlikely that they gave rise to the ancestral forms of either group. The Archaeoceti may be regarded as a less successful independent line which died out perhaps 10 million years ago (Gaskin,1972, p. 3).

Fossil teeth are central to the whale fossil record. Unfortunately, this evidence is very problematic. For example, Pakice- tus teeth resemble those of Protocetus and Indocetus (Berta, 1995; Bajpai and Gingerich, 1998). Toothed whales first appeared in the fossil record in the Eocene, estimated by evolutionists to be 30 million geological years after the Archeocetes became extinct (Evans, 1987; Alexander, 1975). Evans concluded that the Eocene archeocete fossils were “replaced” by members of four different fossil whale orders in strata judged to be Oligocene. Two separate types of Odon- toceti—those with polyform teeth, such as the Squalodontidae, and others with no dental differentiation (monoform teeth)— may have existed. Only the monoform dentition groups still exist today.

Darwinists claim that whale teeth evolved from the “differentiated” con- dition found in fossil whales, to the

“undifferentiated” teeth found in modern Odontoceti. This evolution scenario requires a series of fossils linking a long serpent-like creature with tiny back legs (such as the Basilosaurus) to modern toothed whales. Furthermore, the com- parison of these unrelated and unlinked life-forms is not based on scientific data, and evidence exists that they were con- temporary with whales, thus could not be a whale precursor.

The claim that true polyform teeth exist in certain fossil Odontoceti requires more study (Ridgway, 1972). Toothed Squalodontidae fossils found in the late Oligocene possessed teeth grouped into functional incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. For this reason evolutionists are forced to claim that teeth became more numerous and less specialized as the pre-whales evolved into modern Odontoceti whales (Gaskin, 1972).

... so you actually have no evidence. Just things written by other people. No skulls, no skeletons. Nothing. Good to know.
And the case for dogs would only apply with species that emerged in the fossil record before wolves up to modern wolves. The various MAN-MADE species of dogs is not the same as the extant species that emerged via natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
... so you actually have no evidence. Just things written by other people. No skulls, no skeletons. Nothing. Good to know.

True, I don't have a room full of skulls and skeletons...and I would suspect you don't either. I would think the things written by other people have studied the skulls and skeletons and presented science that refuted your so-called transitional.

You said: You would have to show a fossil of an animal that belongs to that lineage, that does not fit in to the lineage nor possess any of the features that exist in either Ambulocetus', Basilosaurus' or whales, but still fits in to that lineage.

I did.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,400
31
Wales
✟423,906.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
True, I don't have a room full of skulls and skeletons...and I would suspect you don't either. I would think the things written by other people have studied the skulls and skeletons and presented science that refuted your so-called transitional.

You said: You would have to show a fossil of an animal that belongs to that lineage, that does not fit in to the lineage nor possess any of the features that exist in either Ambulocetus', Basilosaurus' or whales, but still fits in to that lineage.

I did.

Yeah, actually look at my request: You would have to show a fossil of an animal that belongs to that lineage...
I'll repeat that again, but I'll cut it down to get to the nub of the matter: You would have to a show a fossil...
And for brevity's sake, I'll cut it down ever more to really hammer my point home: show a fossil

You have not, in any way shape or form, followed through with my request, which was to show a fossil.
A complete swing and a miss, struck out, kicked off the field and banned from playing.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, actually look at my request: You would have to show a fossil of an animal that belongs to that lineage...
I'll repeat that again, but I'll cut it down to get to the nub of the matter: You would have to a show a fossil...
And for brevity's sake, I'll cut it down ever more to really hammer my point home: show a fossil

You have not, in any way shape or form, followed through with my request, which was to show a fossil.
A complete swing and a miss, struck out, kicked off the field and banned from playing.

I'm not really going to take the time and paste pictures of the so-called photo-whales mentioned in my post.

Perhaps this will help. There's more of what you asked for on this site.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,400
31
Wales
✟423,906.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not really going to take the time and paste pictures of the so-called photo-whales mentioned in my post.

Perhaps this will help. There's more of what you asked for on this site.

First, it's proto-whales. Not photo-whales.
Now on to your 'evidence'. First link really says all I need to know about your claim: "Whale evolution fraud".
I'd like to say what I think about you and your brilliantly stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, but even if I toned it down, I'd still run the risk of breaking CF's rules.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Your argument is old and based upon what YOU think. There is no reason as to why God could not have created using "nested hierarchy"

There is no reason why God would create species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, creationism does not predict a nested hierarchy. Evolution does predict a nested hierarchy because that is the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolution can produce when there is a lack of lateral gene flow.

God created with different degree's of splendor.

Why can't one of those degrees of splendor be a species with three middle ear bones and feathers?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Now I find you doing the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe...avoiding the question. If you truly are a "Warden_of_the _storm.....you would address the question.
Then again in my above post I said....I fully expect you can't. So far you've proven me right. But, that's OK.

You claim that there are no transitional fossils.

In order for your claim to make sense, you need to list the criteria you use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. What are those criteria?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
SWING AND A MISS....STRIKE 3. YOU'RRRRRRRE OUT....seems as if you can't explain how mutations add up.

I already explained that to you here:

How Mutations Accumulate

You continue to ignore the opening post of that thread because it demonstrates how mutations add up.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
Considering descent with modification is impossible..

In what way is descent with modification impossible?

Are you denying the fact that each generation of animals is, at least in some way, modified from the last generation? Becuase that's what descent with modification basically is.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not really going to take the time and paste pictures of the so-called photo-whales mentioned in my post.

Perhaps this will help. There's more of what you asked for on this site.
It would help if you could support your claims with actual science articles. If a an article has links, actual science based articles will have links to the peer reviewed science that they are based upon. Or if interviews are use the whole interview is linked so people can make sure that parts are not taken out of context. Your creation.com article fails in that regard. They have links to other creation.com articles but no links to the supposed sources. That reeks of dishonesty on their part. An honest source would want others to be able to check their sources.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Their problem is...trying to show it can actually work. Showing how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

I've been asking for literally decades on how mutations add up and have never received an answer.

Natural Selection

I have come to the conclusion evolutionism is based squarely on faith.

And only a fool would follow something that is based squarely on faith, is that it? Or is following something on only faith a GOOD thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NathanM.
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can anyone give a quantitative answer to David Berlinski's question:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

Can anyone quantify the number of changes that would be needed to morph from one creature to another?

And what counts as one change?
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And only a fool would follow something that is based squarely on faith, is that it? Or is following something on only faith a GOOD thing?
Although I have a certain element of faith....I also have science.

Are you claiming evolutionism has no faith aspect to it?
 
Upvote 0