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.
No, it's not.That's like finding a wine glass in the sand on a beach and saying the glass was formed by random lighting strikes and that even though we've never found another one, the sheer number of grains of sand in the world leaves a very large potential for naturally formed wine glasses.
Very sorry if you think I am being "slick" here. I have only asked for two very specific things Sir.
If universal common descent is true and can be proven by the fossils then in order to do so I need to see an example of a "finely" graduated chain (ie...no huge leaps between links) leading between any two differing major forms.
Not a leap from fish no legs to one with full legs and claim their related because they have many other very similar features.
I'm not trying to be slick
I am only saying if the fossils prove universal common descent happened
If Stephen Gould's P.E. theory is your argument and evolution happened on too fast of a scale to produce fossil evidence then please stop telling me the fossils present evidence.
You don't get your cake and eat it too. Either gradual evolution happened and the fossils prove it, or P.E. is true and the fossils don't. Pick one and stick with it.
First I just want to say that your not "going back" to quote your examples kind of feels like maybe your not being honest with me.
Honestly you and I both know that no one can say with absolute certainty where the information found in DNA comes from.
It has not been observed forming in the laboratory or any where else.
Evolutionists would likely theorize it can be built up over long periods of time by random mutations and natural selection.
Actually no he did not.
For starters this article was written over 24 years ago.
He has since then gone on to write articles for Creationist websites like Answers In Genesis and Creation Institute.
I actually contacted AiG about him and they said they were aware of the article you cited and that in it Wise never presents examples of finely graduated chains that I asked for
An ignorant question, BradB, because there are many "finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms". Evolution of the horse. Evolution of the wale. Evolution on Homo Sapiens, etc. etc.Okay so if common descent were true then why can't someone present me with at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms?
An ignorant question, BradB, because you can easily find such examples, e.g. the evolution of blood clotting which is definitely beneficial!Or why cant someone present me with an "observed" example of new gene increasing type of information being added to the DNA code of any "multi-celled" organism in a way that was beneficial to that organism?
An almost ignorant demand for observed evolution in multi-cell organisms when their generations are generally long enough, etc. that we usually do not observe evolution. There are well known examples of such observations.Also if you attempt to, please note I said multi celled not single celled and I said observed not assumed.
This is not the real world, BradB.Also please don't give me any examples of chains with huge leaps like from one link to another like a dinosaur suddenly in one step growing a huge sail, or a fish in one link suddenly having fully developed legs...etc.
To ALL: An irrelevant and ignorant video fantasizing about scientific evidence for God. Cherry picking of quotes in the description. The narrator states ignorance.To ALL
This pretty much covers it, short and sweet.
no series of fossils can prove evolution since we cant prove that they evolved from each other:
no series of fossils can prove evolution since we cant prove that they evolved from each other:
i think otherhwise and proved it with designed objects.
Fossils demonstrate evolution by demonstrates patterns of change over time in organic populations. It's those patterns which demonstrate evolution.
Those same patterns don't exist in designed objects.
A lot of this has to do with the fact that living organisms are largely constrained by hereditary changes* whereas designed objects aren't restricted in the same manner. This was demonstrated to you when I tried constructing phylogenetic trees of vehicles like the above cars, vans, trucks, etc, and couldn't get any sort of statistically convergent trees even when using the same vehicles.
Of you course, you already know all this because we've had this discussion multiple times now. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring prior discussions.
(* And before you bring it up, there are examples of non-hereditary changes in DNA that do occur in populations; e.g. horizontal gene transfer, viral insertions, etc. However, inheritance is still a prime factor in the changes in living populations over time.)
so you are still think that a tipical bicycle isnt closer to another bicycle then to a car?
How can we tell? Bicycles, tricycles and cars don't have genomes to compare. We can't try to mate them to see if they are interfertile because cars don't reproduce that way. So, there is no way to tell.so you are still think that a tipical bicycle isnt closer to another bicycle then to a car?
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?