Macroevolution:

tevans9129 · Aug 21, 2017

Can anyone provide a link that has an unaltered photograph of a "transitional fossil"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

tevans9129 · Aug 21, 2017

pitabread said:
What is a phylogenetic tree, mark?

I am not Mark but found this interesting.

"Phylogenetic trees, although speculative, provide a convenient method for studying phylogenetic relationships."
phylogenetic tree | biology

No doubt some consider "speculative" to be proven science, not everyone does.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 21, 2017

tevans9129 said:
I am not Mark but found this interesting.

"Phylogenetic trees, although speculative, provide a convenient method for studying phylogenetic relationships."
phylogenetic tree | biology

No doubt some consider "speculative" to be proven science, not everyone does.

Written articles on evolution are riddled with such terms.

tevans9129 · Aug 21, 2017

bhsmte said:
What does the fossil record tell you, along with DNA as well?

Something died?

Speedwell · Aug 21, 2017

tevans9129 said:
I am not Mark but found this interesting.

"Phylogenetic trees, although speculative, provide a convenient method for studying phylogenetic relationships."
phylogenetic tree | biology

No doubt some consider "speculative" to be proven science, not everyone does.

"Proven" as opposed to what? Science is what it is, but you go on as if you had some reasonable alternative, but you don't.

BTW, scientific theories are never "proven." They can be confirmed by evidence, but they are all potentially disprovable at any time.

lesliedellow · Aug 21, 2017

tevans9129 said:
I agree, from goo to you by way of the zoo, now that is real science.

Real science is based on evidence; not on a religiously motivated determination to bury one's head in the sand, and pretend that inconvenient facts are not there.

tevans9129 · Aug 21, 2017

OldWiseGuy said:
I have no quarrel with the belief of others.

Same here, as long as they present it as their "belief" and not as a provable fact. IF, we cannot answer every question that we may be asked that challenges that belief, with plausible, verifiable answers, then it is nothing more than our opinions, beliefs.

tevans9129 · Aug 21, 2017

lesliedellow said:
Real science is based on evidence;

Great, can you provide some of that evidence?

"Can anyone provide a link that has an unaltered photograph of a "transitional fossil"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be at least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?"

AirPo · Aug 21, 2017

Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4 said:
Where can i find half dog half cat ,it was nice cartoon when i was child , i would like to have something like that to remind me about good old times .

In your imagination or on a lcw web cite.

AirPo · Aug 21, 2017

AV1611VET said:
1. Is just a theory.
2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.
3. Is anathema to the Bible.
4. Cannot be observed.
5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.
6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.
7. Is a lie of the Devil.
8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.
9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.

So disappointing I need to post this yet again.

QV

Non sequitur · Aug 21, 2017

tevans9129 said:
Can anyone provide a link that has an unaltered photograph of a "transitional fossil"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

First, when is a fossil not a transitional fossil?

AirPo · Aug 21, 2017

Non sequitur said:
First, when is a fossil not a transitional fossil?

When it went extinct. No, that's not right. Is there a word for when a branch ends, as opposed to a species.

Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4 · Aug 21, 2017

AirPo said:
In your imagination or on a lcw web cite.

Since all of these half dog half cats creatures evolved half of them into cats and half into dogs , why we don't have any bones of these animals or anything like that ? Shouldn't there be thousand of thousands animals like this and thier bones ?

Obliquinaut · Aug 21, 2017

JacksBratt said:
Ya.... but then there are trees.... petrified, fossilized trees...... standing straight up through your billions of years of sediment.

-sigh- yeah. We've heard it all before. But stratigraphy isn't quite as simple as all that. First off, the presence of "polystrate fossils" (not a technical term used in geology) was not a problem for 19th century geologists and, indeed, you don't just assume that all formations all accumulate at a slow rate. There is some evidence that occasionally formations accumulate relatively quickly. It doesn't really change the overall view of "deep time", but it does show that sedimentology can work over a variety of timescales.

You can learn more about it here: "Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Certainly not going to stand there for a million even...

And again, even today we occasionally see rapid burial of items.

And, as someone already stated, they found soft tissue of a dinosaur.

This was a surprise and interestingly enough there's a couple reasons for this:

1. Few people had bothered to check for organic preservation in rocks that old because, as one geologist noted: if you assume it isn't there why go to the effort to dig up these fossils only to digest them and crush them and destroy them looking for it?

2. The science indicates that there is a role for iron in preserving some of these materials. It has apparently been tested in the lab, so it's a workable hypothesis that doesn't in any way cause problems with deep time.

Now we watch as all these "experts" in fossils and the grand delusion of billions of years, scramble to deny that it is, in fact real soft tissue

You might want to actually read what the scientists think about this stuff. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1775/20132741

, and then start the baffle-gab necessary to avoid the fact that fossils are not even 100 thousand years old.

I love reading the words of people who don't have the discipline to study science for years and find a way to complain that their ignorance of the science is somehow a valid critique of the science. "Baffle-gab". Truly excellent term.

What it really means is: "I don't understand it so it must be wrong." Well, for those of us who bothered to get a PhD in geochemistry it really isn't all that "Baffling".

All will be revealed.

It already has been. It already has been.

tevans9129 · Aug 21, 2017

Non sequitur said:
First, when is a fossil not a transitional fossil?

I give up, are you saying that all fossils are "transitional"? If not, can you provide a link as I requested of one that you consider as transitional?

OldWiseGuy · Aug 21, 2017

tevans9129 said:
Same here, as long as they present it as their "belief" and not as a provable fact. IF, we cannot answer every question that we may be asked that challenges that belief, with plausible, verifiable answers, then it is nothing more than our opinions, beliefs.

They're free to present it any way they like. I'm free to not accept it. It is the fervent wish that each believe the other. To the extent that their beliefs are beneficial I have no problem. I'm going for a check up this afternoon. I really don't care how my doctor views my anatomy; either created or evolved. It probably looks the same either way.

Obliquinaut · Aug 21, 2017

Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4 said:
Since all of these half dog half cats creatures evolved half of them into cats and half into dogs , why we don't have any bones of these animals or anything like that ? Shouldn't there be thousand of thousands animals like this and thier bones ?

LOL! Does this sound really erudite when you type it?

Obliquinaut · Aug 21, 2017

tevans9129 said:
I do not know of any creationist that does not believe in "microevolution", adaptive change. Neither do I know any Bible believing Christian that believes one "kind" has ever evolved into a different "kind".

Can you specify in the biochemistry where micro-evolution has a hard break from the macro-evolution? Can you explain why it must be "simple" to adapt to new environments by marshalling entirely new chemical features but it would be hard to do so in many ways?

Or will we soon be treated to Creationists believing in "Meso-evolution" just so long as something remains "impossible'?

AirPo · Aug 21, 2017

Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4 said:
Since all of these half dog half cats creatures evolved half of them into cats and half into dogs , why we don't have any bones of these animals or anything like that ? Shouldn't there be thousand of thousands animals like this and thier bones ?

Only in your imagination.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 21, 2017

Non sequitur said:
First, when is a fossil not a transitional fossil?

Yes; a lot depends on the particular fossil that becomes the holotype - it's typically just a chance snapshot of the evolutionary continuum that happens to be sufficiently different to warrant a new description.

Macroevolution:

Newbie

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Member

Newbie

Newbie

with a Touch of Grey

with a Touch of Grey

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

with a Touch of Grey

Well-Known Member

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

with a Touch of Grey

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency