Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Kenny'sID]

Fossilization is very rare in the first place, and fossils can easily be destroyed over time. We're very fortunate when we find any fossils at all.

Besides, if we doubled the number of fossils, we'd have double the number of missing links between them...

Not buying it, not even close. I avoided the term as long as I possibly could but this is so far from adding up, it's "ridiculous". My last few posts may or may not help.

At say, an average of 40yrs per generation (choose whatever reasonable number you like there) how many generations would you guess came between ape and man as we know him today?

 

[loveofourlord]

You sill aren't being clear, I need the whole thing...what did you "know about evolution" in the case of the feathered species of dinosaurs, that predicted what, and what does all of it prove?

Step by step please.

they've known for decades that birds were dinosaurs before we found the feathers, due to the morphological data and such. Then later got even stronger evidence when feathers were found to be on dinosaurs, particularly the line of dinosaurs that evolved into birds. Most of the feathered dinosaurs we've found are those simular to Archaeopteryx and such. Again funny how it fits what we already knew and predicted.

 

[loveofourlord]

Not buying it, not even close. I avoided the term as long as I possibly could but this is so far from adding up, it's "ridiculous". My last few posts may or may not help.

At say, an average of 40yrs per generation (choose whatever reasonable number you like there) how many generations would you guess came between ape and man as we know him today?

You do remember that man evolved in africa a area that is very hostile towards fossilization that usually requires a lot of water.

 

[Kenny'sID]

and you creationists with your gaps, your so cute,

You really think you can hide something so huge behind such a tiny condescending statement? Do serious evolutionists who honestly seek the truth go along with that type of poor attempt to demean as a defense? Or do you see it's not a viable defense at all, and it only make the evolutionists look worse/appear desperate?

Anyway, it's expected, so no big deal...but I did want to point out what happens when there is no viable defense. It's a very pertinent sign.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

And does that help to back the evolution claim?

Of course they're rare....thank you.

Problem with that is, as I already alluded, over the so-called slow process of evolution there would be hundreds or even thousands/millions or more (actually the numbers would be off the charts) in between creature that led up to what we have today, while instead, there are all but none. You are depending in the "bit's and pieces" that I already told you just won't work here (they only work against your claim) in order to make your point?

For example, let's take an ape or whatever it is you all think we evolved from, now where are the all but never ending amount of fossils that gradually turned into a man? IOW, if we find several ape fossils and several modern man fossils there would have to be tons of slowly evolving creatures fossils in between there, and for all intents and purposes, we might as well say there are none.

Again, where are they all?

If you accept that fossilization is rare, why do you think there should still be millions/off the charts (so, hundreds of millions? Billions? Trillions?) examples of in-between forms in the fossil record?

If you think fossilization happens often enough to produce trillions of intact findable fossils but evolution isn't true, why aren't there trillions of fossils of non-evolving lifeforms found throughout the fossil record? Where are they all?

Why aren't there never-ending amounts of T-Rex and sloth and dolphin fossils everywhere? Why we aren't up to our nipples in fossils? And if you understand why not, then why do you think we should expect to be if evolution is true?

 

[loveofourlord]

You really think you can hide something so huge behind such a tiny condescending statement? Do serious evolutionists who honestly seek the truth go along with that type of poor attempt to demean as a defense? Or do you see it's not a viable defense at all, and it only make the evolutionists look worse/appear desperate?

Anyway, it's expected, so no big deal...but I did want to point out what happens when there is no viable defense. It's a very pertinent sign.

you've been demeaning to evolutionists and evolution from the start, yoiur not one to talk. And all you have is is that, show evidence evolution is wrong that isn't just hand waving. Thats not how science works, you don't get to say, "Well thats not evidence." you need something more then that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

they've known for decades that birds were dinosaurs before we found the feathers, due to the morphological data and such. Then later got even stronger evidence when feathers were found to be on dinosaurs, particularly the line of dinosaurs that evolved into birds. Most of the feathered dinosaurs we've found are those simular to Archaeopteryx and such. Again funny how it fits what we already knew and predicted.

I'm still working on determining if birds are dino's, hands down. I'm thinking dinosaurs are reptiles, and aside from a few dinosaur birds that of course have feathers, birds are not dinosaurs in general and you are being extremity deceptive with your claim....another bad sign.

How is finding what you feel is stronger evidence such a gigantic breakthrough?

And because there are some dinosaurs that have feathers, how does that help make the point of evolution?

I think you all grabbed a few similarities and made a mountain out of a mole hill with it. Many mammals have similarities, so what was so special about those between dino's and birds?

Try to answer all questions if you would please.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm still working on determining if birds are dino's, hands down. I'm thinking dinosaurs are reptiles, and aside from a few dinosaur birds that of course have feathers, birds are not dinosaurs in general and you are being extremity deceptive with your claim....another bad sign.

How is finding what you feel is stronger evidence such a gigantic breakthrough?

And because there are some dinosaurs that have feathers, how does that help make the point of evolution?

I think you all grabbed a few similarities and made a mountain out of a mole hill with it. Many mammals have similarities, so what was so special about those between dino's and birds?

Try to answer all questions if you would please.

sorry no longer taking uhuh as a response, just saying, "that doesn't count." without understanding the evolution of the animals or showing why it's wrong will no longer be allowed. I'm not going to keep repeating myself so you can wave it away. Show why it's wrong.

 

[Yttrium]

Not buying it, not even close. I avoided the term as long as I possibly could but this is so far from adding up, it's "ridiculous". My last few posts may or may not help.

You're using an argument from incredulity. If you knew more about the fossilization process, and what kind of wear and tear the fossils go through over time, you might not be so incredulous about it.

At say, an average of 40yrs per generation (choose whatever reasonable number you like there) how many generations would you guess came between ape and man as we know him today?

Well, humans are apes, so 0.

 

[loveofourlord]

You're using an argument from incredulity. If you knew more about the fossilization process, and what kind of wear and tear the fossils go through over time, you might not be so incredulous about it.



Well, humans are apes, so 0.

hehe I always love it when they say things like this, it's their biggest flaw, they arn't even arguing poorly against evolution, they are arguing poorly against a non existant version of evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

you've been demeaning to evolutionists and evolution from the start, yoiur not one to talk. And all you have is is that, show evidence evolution is wrong that isn't just hand waving. Thats not how science works, you don't get to say, "Well thats not evidence." you need something more then that.

Science doesn't do anything, it is no more than a name given to the process of drawing conclusion by studying the natural.

All you have done is talk/given opinion of what others have given their opinion on. The fact there is nothing near the number of fossils of inbetweens there should be is insurmountable evidence yet you claim I have only waved my hands?? IOW, because of that I disagree with your evolution but you are going to dismiss that fact as 'talk"?? When sensible arguments are brushed off as "talk", no wonder you believe evolution. You do realize "talk"/reasonable contrary conclusions are important...right?

Answer me this:

how many generations would you guess came between ape and man as we know him today?

 

[Speedwell]

Science doesn't do anything, it is no more than a name given to the process of drawing conclusion by studying the natural.

Very good, Kenny.

All you have done is talk/given opinion of what others have given their opinion on. The fact there is nothing near the number of fossils of inbetweens there should be is insurmountable evidence yet you claim I have only waved my hands?? IOW,

How many "should" there be? You know that fossilization is a fairly rare occurrence and that not all fossils have been found. The important thing is that none found so far contradict the theory.

because of that I disagree with your evolution but you are going to dismiss that fact as 'talk"?? When sensible arguments are brushed off as "talk", no wonder you believe evolution. You do realize "talk"/reasonable contrary conclusions are important...right?

What reasonable contrary conclusions are these? All of the "contrary conclusions" I know about are based on an arbitrary interpretation of an ancient holy book.

 

[loveofourlord]

Science doesn't do anything, it is no more than a name given to the process of drawing conclusion by studying the natural.

All you have done is talk/given opinion of what others have given their opinion on. The fact there is nothing near the number of fossils of inbetweens there should be is insurmountable evidence yet you claim I have only waved my hands?? IOW, because of that I disagree with your evolution but you are going to dismiss that fact as 'talk"?? When sensible arguments are brushed off as "talk", no wonder you believe evolution. You do realize "talk"/reasonable contrary conclusions are important...right?

Answer me this:

quick math, around 175,000 generations asuming that the 40 year generations stayed true, though does anyone know how long the other great apes generations are?

what sensible arguments? your entire argument so far has been, "I provide evidence." and you say, uhuh. you can't just say that feathered dinosaurs fitting the pattern that was known before they were found isn't evidence you have to give actual reasons for it.

I don't find your arguments convincing because you havn't shown why the feathered dinosaurs arn't shouldn't be accepted as evidence. Saying stuff like, "We share things with dinosaurs does that make us dinosaurs." shows a complete lack of understanding in evolution and the evidence. Provide something more useful. Heck there are millions of tired old pratts that are better arguments then the ones your using. you could use the tired old lie about lucy's knee being found 2 miles away and that be more substantive then uhuh.

 

[pitabread]

Incredulity is not a compelling argument against how evolution happened, and it is virtually irrelevant against whether it happened.

You're using an argument from incredulity. If you knew more about the fossilization process, and what kind of wear and tear the fossils go through over time, you might not be so incredulous about it.

I realize these are separate posts to different individuals, but it does speak to a common theme.

Incredulity is simply another way of saying, "I don't understand something" whether it's how something works, or how and why scientists reached a particular conclusion on a subject.

The real solution there is for the individual who doesn't understand that particular subject to go an educate themselves and work to develop a conceptual understanding of that topic.

 

[pitabread]

quick math, around 175,000 generations asuming that the 40 year generations stayed true, though does anyone know how long the other great apes generations are?

IIRC, 20 years is commonly used as an average generation time for hominids.

 

[Kenny'sID]

ou're using an argument from incredulity. If you knew more about the fossilization process, and what kind of wear and tear the fossils go through over time, you might not be so incredulous about it.

Please, that's only an excuse of incredulity. The argument is far from that, it's sound, very sound, and if "science" ignores such things, that would be extremely revealing. You are simply afraid to address it. Now tell me how that fossilization process does away with that argument as you claim. Does it show that I am wrong about the amount of inbeetween fossils that should be found? And whatever else you feel it does to make me wrong.

Well, humans are apes, so 0.

I'm not an ape, but you may suit yourself.

OK, let's go to the trouble of restyling the question where there will be no way to evade it. When did the apes first come into being?

 

[Speedwell]

Please, that's only an excuse of incredulity. The argument is far from that, is sound, very sound, and if "science" ignores such things, that would be extremely revealing. You are simply afraid to address it. Now tell me how that fossilization process does away with that argument as you claim. Does it show that I am wrong about the amount of inbeetween fossils that should be found? And whatever else you feel it does to make me wrong.

Again, it's not the absolute number of fossils which have been found, it's whether any that are found contradict the theory.

I'm not an ape, but you may suit yourself.

OK, let's go to the trouble of restyling the question where there will be no way to evade it. When did the apes first come into being?

Something like twenty million years ago.

 

[loveofourlord]

IIRC, 20 years is commonly used as an average generation time for hominids.

yeah, so while it would likly be linier around 175k to 262.5k generations.

 

[loveofourlord]

Please, that's only an excuse of incredulity. The argument is far from that, is sound, very sound, and if "science" ignores such things, that would be extremely revealing. You are simply afraid to address it. Now tell me how that fossilization process does away with that argument as you claim. Does it show that I am wrong about the amount of inbeetween fossils that should be found? And whatever else you feel it does to make me wrong.



I'm not an ape, but you may suit yourself.

OK, let's go to the trouble of restyling the question where there will be no way to evade it. When did the apes first come into being?

though humans split off from apes around 7 million years ago.

 

[loveofourlord]

Again, it's not the absolute number of fossils which have been found, it's whether any that are found contradict the theory.



Something like twenty million years ago.

okay time line seems to be.

monkey's appeared around 40 million years ago
apes split from monkeys around 30 million years ago
and humans split from chimpanzee's around 7 million years ago.

least acording to google.