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.
Have you read David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here?The now debunked transitions in the whaler series, fraud in the horse series.
A.Afarenses as the branch point between man and ape.
Java man
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Neanderthal man (upgraded to homo sapien)
I could list many more but I think you get the point!
Flexible tissue samples in fossils ranging from 65-500million years old!
Do you imagine that all evolutionists are experts in every aspect of evolution? Surely not. Do you have any reason to think I am an expert in the evolution of feathers? (I'll give you a hint, I'm not.)
Do you think it is intellectually honest to challenge someone whom you know is not in possession of a full set of answers to provide them with the obvious intention, explicitly expressed, of declaring evolution false when they fail to do so? (I'll give you a hint. It isn't.)
But I shall, nevertheless, play your game. First, though, provide documented evidence that demonstrates that all of the steps detailed above are essential for the evolution of feathers. Take as long as you need.
Interesting, but wholly unsubstantiated opinion refuted by an examination of any of the thousands of peer reviewed papers dealing with transitional forms. Your opinion is thus contradicted by the evidence.
Have you read David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here?
My suspicion is you've never read a real biology book, and your anti-evolution missives are entirely based on credo/id sites.
No my opinion is not contradicted by the evidence, but by others opinions!
Paleontologists never had live specimens to look at. To study the cahnging taking place over millions of years. Then they get like minded believers to review their work and agree!
I can bring the same peer review process for YEC scientists showing in great detail why those supposed transitions are not transitions. Looking at bones, makes you an expert at bones- but creating the lifestyles and habitats and reproduction cycles and all that is all speculation based on their belief system in evolution!
Interesting, but wholly unsubstantiated opinion refuted by an examination of any of the thousands of peer reviewed papers dealing with transitional forms. Your opinion is thus contradicted by the evidence.
There are fossil transitions showing stages of terrestrial to semi-aquatic to full aquatic mammals.
There is also a host of other evidence to support the land-to-aquatic-mammal transition in the form of molecular genetics, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, etc.
The purpose is to help gain a conceptual understanding of how certain biological features can have multiple functions. I find that conceptual understanding of how evolution can transition features and what intermediary features might look like tends to be a sticking point with a lot of people.
Well post it and you shall be the first on 4 diswcussion threads I have been on to do so!
Well according to most scientists evolution is fact! So it should be past the "can have" to where they show the did have multiple functions.
Thjat is what they say with the small bones in the rear of whales. They call them vestigiasl legs, but they have no hard evidence! All wer can prove about them bones is they are used for reproduction!---Everything else is all conjecture and conjecture is not scinece but simple random thoughts!
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you. Had you, your anti-evolutionary rhetoric would be more refined and contain actual relevant thoughts.Well your suspicions are wrong. I have done hundreds of hours of reading as well as on line seminars from such notables as Dawkins, Coyne, Miller et. al.
Of course. Who else's would it be?What you choosde to accept is your affair, not mine!
Which is something I don't recommend, as I've not once seen a creo/id accurately convey the findings of a primary source. (At least you didn't say Hovind, so props for that.)Yes I do research and study regularly ICR.
I really didn't expect you have. This book puts a nail in humans being six thousand years old. (Oh, and Neanderthals and Denisovans have both had their genomes mapped, and they are not H. sapiens, though they did breed with them, and we have the DNA to prove it).I have not read the book you mentioned.
I can only presume that by "legions of others texts have not," you mean strictly anti-evolution sites. And yes, it does offer new and compelling evidence that bolsters an already robust and airtight theory.does it offer any new and compelling evidence to give any credulity to evolution that the legions of others texts have not?
Could have? What we need to make evolution science is evidence it did! Not side examples that are not in the line of whales.
Environmental pressures nor natural selection direct or tell genes how or what to mutate. They do not have life or existence or intelligence. They are concepts we observe in nature. when a mutation happens - it causes the host to survive or not or puts it at a small disadvantage to large disadvan tage and then gets culled out!
The extremely rare mutations we do see occur have never added new and previously uncoded information to a genome!
Or do you believe it because that is what you have been taught in science all you rlife so that it is now your presuppositional worldview.
Are you Satans Son 666 from another discussion board? YOu give near identical answers as he does! That is a two way swinging door!
I've seen heated debates between physicists on this point. An alternate view, and one that I lean to, is that Newton's theory was a very good approximation. So, not wrong, just not exactly right in some circumstances.
If all this is just another article on how they took chick embryo feather genes and transplanted them in an alligator embryo. It is a fail! Not only did they not get a croco-duck, but even with using fully precoded genetic info for feathers and put it into a gator, they could not get a gator with feathers! Just a few splayed scutes!
I wouldn't describe myself as being as expert in any area, except in comparison with Creationists.Well then tell us what area of evolution you have expertise in and we shall delve into that. that is fair!
I think it has to be used for GPS satellites because of time differences due to different gravity, but I took a geology degree rather than astronomy because my maths was poor, so what do I do?As an "approximation" Newtonian mechanics is actually so good that it has taken humanity to orbit and to the moon and back and robotic probes to every planet and even beyond. It only becomes problematic at speeds beyond 10% of light speed and we are still well below that.
Why logically? Just because they are fins that have a basic similarity?
And that gap is the same gap that is missing fro all teh critical changes between the major groups!
As for finding it? I don't know.
There have been many such finds- that either had to be retracted upon further discoveries or exposed as adding parts not there!
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/tetrapod_evo.jpg
Artists conceptions is the best we have for filling in those transitions!
The now debunked transitions in the whaler series, fraud in the horse series.
A.Afarenses as the branch point between man and ape.
Java man
Piltdown man
Nebraska Man
Neanderthal man (upgraded to homo sapien)
I could list many more but I think you get the point!
Flexible tissue samples in fossils ranging from 65-500million years old!
Because all the evidence available to us from biology, paleontology, biogeography etc suggest common descent. So for the sake of our hypothesis - that a transitional fossil should be found at a particular location, from a specific time period, we are assuming that such creatures did evolve.
I would have thought that was obvious, but hey ho.
You bought up "fish to amphibians" which I am attempting to discuss, not all major groups. This appears to be an attempt to change the subject to avoid dealing with the specifics of your original assertion, please desist from this, it's rude and unproductive.
Why don't you know? Shouldn't you at least have a passing familiarity with a subject you're attempting to debunk? People have spent years gathering information, studying data, researching the subject, and you come along saying you don't really know much about the subject, but the experts are wrong.
Don't you see a problem here?
Mr Dunning meet Mr Kruger.
You do realize that those artist conceptions are based on real fossil don't you?
Anyway, as I asked....
"Surely finding such a beast that exhibited "transitional" features in rock with the chronological and geographic features described would demonstrate a successful prediction for the theory of evolution right?"
As you're reluctant to answer I'll do it for you..... Yes, it would be a successful prediction.
I say "would be", actually it is a successful prediction. Tiktaalik was discovered using the exact methodology I described, and exhibits the exact transitional features we would expect to see.
Are you willing to reconsider your assertion that "we have 0 fossils of all the stroy from fish to amphib"?
I wouldn't describe myself as being as expert in any area, except in comparison with Creationists.
I take it that this attempt of yours to change the subject means you are unable to meet the reasonable challenge I set you to justify the steps you insist are necessary in order to develop feathers. If I am mistaken, then I await that justification with interest. Once that is complete you may tackle me upon either of these two aspects of evolution:
1. Darwin's development of the theory of evolution as it relates to his youth, educational history, voyage on the Beagle, geological investigations, biological experimentation, friendship and acquaintance with contemporary scientists.
2. The fatuous assertion that Darwinism supports eugenics.
Your other responses to my posts were low grade opinion pieces. Please note I shall not be wasting my time on such in future. Please present demonstrable facts if you wish to have a discussion.
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?