Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Proof of Evolution?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fencerguy" data-source="post: 57429953" data-attributes="member: 283519"><p>Yes I would expect this, but my creationist reasoning for why the differences are similar only in related types of organisms wouldn't make the evolutionist types happy....lol</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem with the "gill arch" fallacy is that the pharyngeal arches don't lead to any respiratory structures whatsoever....So anyone trying to defend evolution by citing vestigial structures and these recapitulated "gillslits" in the human embryo are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse the creationists of doing.....Changing the facts to suit their agenda....</p><p> You're not kidding!! lol</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the fossil record does not show direct ancestry, why do so many evolution proponents act as if it does.......Obvious ancestry is still too strong of a word for me, because it implies jumps that seem too large for any microevolutionary mechanism that I know of.....A logical question arises regarding whale ancestry: other organisms such as otters and crocodilians thrive in aquatic environments, but they have retained four limbs that are fully functional in both the land and the water...Why have these organisms not lost their hind limbs due to their aquatic habits?</p><p></p><p>The only explanation off of the top of my head (and this truly is a wild guess, I am merely thinking practically) would be that since a whale has such greater mass than most fish, they would need greater support in the structures that provide locomotion, hence a bone structure more similar to a hand than a fin?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Pardon any unintended impertinence, but saying that most species don't fossilize seems awfully convenient for the evolution proponents....If all species we find are going to be at the terminus of a branch on the phyologenetic tree, then do we or can we really know for sure which organisms gave rise to which? If there are no examples of the organisms that are found at the bases of the branches, then how do we know that they were ever there to begin with?</p><p></p><p>I applaud your honesty good sir, but this begs the question of why one conclusion based on the trail is so far superior to another? No one dropped a map along the trail of biodiversity, so how can we know for certain that all of the organisms we observe came from one single ancestor? Why is the creationist idea that multiple generic "kinds" of animals were created, and then evolved--within their "kinds"--to show the diversity that we have today? Why is that creationism so invalid?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Would anyone consider this phylogenetic tree acceptable? <img src="http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/orchard.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>The movie.....They have shot all of the Lord of the Rings movies in New Zealand.....If New Zealand went extinct they would have no place sufficiently epic to finish the Hobbit movie......<img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fencerguy, post: 57429953, member: 283519"] Yes I would expect this, but my creationist reasoning for why the differences are similar only in related types of organisms wouldn't make the evolutionist types happy....lol The problem with the "gill arch" fallacy is that the pharyngeal arches don't lead to any respiratory structures whatsoever....So anyone trying to defend evolution by citing vestigial structures and these recapitulated "gillslits" in the human embryo are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse the creationists of doing.....Changing the facts to suit their agenda.... You're not kidding!! lol If the fossil record does not show direct ancestry, why do so many evolution proponents act as if it does.......Obvious ancestry is still too strong of a word for me, because it implies jumps that seem too large for any microevolutionary mechanism that I know of.....A logical question arises regarding whale ancestry: other organisms such as otters and crocodilians thrive in aquatic environments, but they have retained four limbs that are fully functional in both the land and the water...Why have these organisms not lost their hind limbs due to their aquatic habits? The only explanation off of the top of my head (and this truly is a wild guess, I am merely thinking practically) would be that since a whale has such greater mass than most fish, they would need greater support in the structures that provide locomotion, hence a bone structure more similar to a hand than a fin? Pardon any unintended impertinence, but saying that most species don't fossilize seems awfully convenient for the evolution proponents....If all species we find are going to be at the terminus of a branch on the phyologenetic tree, then do we or can we really know for sure which organisms gave rise to which? If there are no examples of the organisms that are found at the bases of the branches, then how do we know that they were ever there to begin with? I applaud your honesty good sir, but this begs the question of why one conclusion based on the trail is so far superior to another? No one dropped a map along the trail of biodiversity, so how can we know for certain that all of the organisms we observe came from one single ancestor? Why is the creationist idea that multiple generic "kinds" of animals were created, and then evolved--within their "kinds"--to show the diversity that we have today? Why is that creationism so invalid? Would anyone consider this phylogenetic tree acceptable? [IMG]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/orchard.jpg[/IMG] The movie.....They have shot all of the Lord of the Rings movies in New Zealand.....If New Zealand went extinct they would have no place sufficiently epic to finish the Hobbit movie......^_^ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Proof of Evolution?
Top
Bottom