Prove it or remove it challenge

[Gene2memE]

Please stop and think about what you just said. I am flunking bio 101 because I expect to see gradually developing features. Evolution requires vast amounts of time to develop a creature, evolution shows a bird dinosaur as proof of its self, yet where and I all again is the transitions. For the one year of that birds life there must have been a million more where it was slowly forming yet we have not even one such fossil. Admit it using the fossil record disproves evolution. You try to tell me it is because the record is incomplete yet we have millions of fossils surly statistically you would expect one such transition. Realistically millions. God made every one of those creatures that is why they are fully formed. Be honest don't lie in your heart the fossil record disproves evolution.

You might want to look at these:

Caudipteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Jeholornis
Jixiangornis
Microraptor
Sinornithosaurus
Cryptovolans
Archaeopteryx
Pedopenna
Xiaotingia
Aurornis
Anchiornis

You know what, just do a search on the whole paraves, avialae and tetrapterygidae CLADES.

Yes, that's right, there are entire clades of archaic bird-dino forms that show exactly the kind of mosaic transitional features you're looking for...

And, just to note, I've pulled those dino-bird transitionals from a thread I answered in December 2015. Nothing you're arguing here is new, novel or difficult to answer.

I suggest that instead of imagining problems, you start researching answers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please stop and think about what you just said. I am flunking bio 101 because I expect to see gradually developing features.

Evolution doesn't work through crockoducks.

Every creature is a "full" creature within the context of the species it belonged to. The sooner you get that into your thick skull, the sooner we can move on from this nonsense argument.

Again, why is it, that people like you think they are qualfied to argue against a theory, when you don't even know what the theory actually says?

I advice you to actually learn what evolution theory is all about from a proper biology source.

Evolution requires vast amounts of time to develop a creature

Here you go again, making that same mistake.
You talk as if the whole "point" or "purpose" of the evolutionary history of this planet was specifically to produce the species we have today. This is false.

Dino's didn't start to develop wings so that birds could fly millions of years later.
When a mutation is said to be beneficial, one means that it is beneficial at the time it takes place. For the creature that has the actual mutation.

There is no "anticipation" in evolution. Natural selection doesn't favor creatures thinking "hmmm, another few million years and this will be neat!"

It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way.

How many times must it be repeated, before it will sink in?

Admit it using the fossil record disproves evolution.

At best, it disproves your warped and false representation of evolution.

This is the equivalent of saying that Newtonian physics is false by representing gravity as a force that makes matter repel eachother instead of attract.

It's asanine.

If you are going to start with a false assumption / strawman, then only nonsense will follow.

You try to tell me it is because the record is incomplete yet we have millions of fossils surly statistically you would expect one such transition. Realistically millions. God made every one of those creatures that is why they are fully formed. Be honest don't lie in your heart the fossil record disproves evolution.

You, of all people, are going to demand honesty? Really?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You have repeatedly been told that fossilization is RARE. Genetic study is far more reliable when discussing evolution.

Now...how about apologizing to all of us you've called liars (see bolded in quote above). Humble yourself before those you have implied are not Christians. Humble yourself before the Lord for implying that you are a special snowflake that has had spiritual encounters and no one else gets to have them. You don't want to learn, you want to argue and imply you are somehow superior.

How about this...I live in the USA and I will fight tooth and nail to keep "creation science" out of schools. It's a religious belief and has NOTHING to do with legitimate scientific study or method. You want to believe in creationism, great...go for it while the rest of the world laughs behind your back or in your face. However, you do not have the right to push your (admittedly unscientific) beliefs on anyone else. You want to teach your kid creationism, then homeschool or send him to some fundamentalist Christian school where the rest of his education will also be substandard. You have no right to try to force your beliefs on the rest of a population.

Appologise for what ... I said don't lie to yourself be honest in your own heart.

Again think for just one moment for every fully developed species there must be a million years between the arrival of that creature. Tell me now man of God why do we ONLY see fully developed creatures. Not one I repeat not one of its preceding transitional forms. You say fossilisation is rare yet in the age of the dinosaur a relatively short period of time statistically speaking we have many fossils. To say the reason why we don't see even one transition is due to lack of fossilisation is ridiculous. You are not thinking scientifically nor statistically you are believing a lie. Wake up. creation is more scientific than evolution when you consider this evidence.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Appologise for what ... I said don't lie to yourself be honest in your own heart.

Again think for just one moment for every fully developed species there must be a million years between the arrival of that creature. Tell me now man of God why do we ONLY see fully developed creatures. Not one I repeat not one of its preceding transitional forms. You say fossilisation is rare yet in the age of the dinosaur a relatively short period of time statistically speaking we have many fossils. To say the reason why we don't see even one transition is due to lack of fossilisation is ridiculous. You are not thinking scientifically nor statistically you are believing a lie. Wake up. creation is more scientific than evolution when you consider this evidence.

First of all, I am a WOMAN of God. Second, you have been given hundreds of examples. Third, if you can't figure it out, then I can't help you and you can wallow in your stupidity, arrogance and pride.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again think for just one moment for every fully developed species there must be a million years between the arrival of that creature.

Every creature/organism at any point in the evolutionary timeline is a "fully developed species". There are no half-creature. There are no crockoducks.

Learn what evolution is really all about before trying to argue against it.

Tell me now man of God why do we ONLY see fully developed creatures.

Because every species is its own species in its own habitat and change is gradual.

Not one I repeat not one of its preceding transitional forms

Every species is transitional between its parent species and its decendant species.
Heck, every individual is transitional between its direct parent and its direct off spring.

You say fossilisation is rare yet in the age of the dinosaur a relatively short period of time statistically speaking we have many fossils.

A relatively "short" period of time???
+150 million years from its origins to its extinction is a "short" period of time????

To say the reason why we don't see even one transition is due to lack of fossilisation is ridiculous.

Nobody said that. We do see transition, in the actual biological sense.
A transitional fossil is a fossil that exhibits both traits of its ancestors and traits of its off spring. Which is...like... all of them.

You are not thinking scientifically nor statistically you are believing a lie.

Nobody here believes the version of "evolution" you are talking about, because that is not what evolution theory is about. This version you are talking about is a strawman / lie that you were told by creationists.

Wake up. creation is more scientific than evolution when you consider this evidence.

No, an unsupportable god "speaking" things into existence in an unfalsifiable magical way is not "more scientific" then a process that is, at bottom, mere chemistry and physics.



EDIT: here's a question for you, hopefully then some light will go on inside your head... you mentioned dogs before. I'll go ahead and assume that you agree that we humans have "created" all the different types of dogs we know and love today by using artifical selection (breeding).

Please, can you point me to "half a chiuwawa"? Or half a st bernard? Half a great dane? What would that even look like? Isn't every dog breed that ever existed a "full dog breed"? Great danes, st bernards, chiuwawa's, pitbulls,... all share a dog ancestor. This naturally follows from the fact that they were all "created" through breeding programs.

So, what was that ancestor? Was it half-chiuwawa, half great dane, half st bernard, half pitbull,......... ?

See how this makes zero sense?
That ancestral dog (or dog breed) was a species/breed of its own. It wasn't "half anything". It was a "full" species/breed of dog.

Now, extrapolate that to a larger group of animals. Replace "dog" with "primate". This would include chimps, gorilla's, humans, bonobo's...
Same story: the ancestor was not "half chimp" and "half gorilla" and "half human". Nope. It was a species of its own. A primate ancestor.

Now, extrapolate further back: mammals. Dogs, cats, elephants, mice, apes,... The ancestor thereof was, again, a full species of its own. A mammal ancestor.


Is it becoming a bit clearer now?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I am on my mobile so I can't quote stuff... But in reply to a previous quote you say I don't understand evolution ... That what I just said does not make any sense. For each of the following points tell me why it does not make sense logically.

For a species to develop it must gradually change over mlions of years. We must assume then that for every feature that is developed it will take millions of years for it to grow. This would include partially developed eyes, partially developed wings, partially developed legs. Yet it is true that every fossil we see is fully developed. There are no bumps turning into an arm, or leg. Each one can fully function in its environment . Now back to the millions of years for every developed species there should be a million years worth of limb growth. Eye growth. Statistically .. Feel free to prove me wrong ... There should be more years worth of growth than fully functioning feature. So statistically we should see more underdeveloped features than developed. It is statistically impossible then to see only well adapted creatures. You can not say it is because only well adapted creatures pass on Thiet traits. Because this creature has Been alive developing that trust for millions of years. Again where are all the transitions, partially developed animals.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You might want to look at these:

Caudipteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Jeholornis
Jixiangornis
Microraptor
Sinornithosaurus
Cryptovolans
Archaeopteryx
Pedopenna
Xiaotingia
Aurornis
Anchiornis

I'm right here.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I am on my mobile so I can't quote stuff... But in reply to a previous quote you say I don't understand evolution ... That what I just said does not make any sense. For each of the following points tell me why it does not make sense logically.

For a species to develop it must gradually change over mlions of years. We must assume then that for every feature that is developed it will take millions of years for it to grow. This would include partially developed eyes, partially developed wings, partially developed legs. Yet it is true that every fossil we see is fully developed. There are no bumps turning into an arm, or leg. Each one can fully function in its environment . Now back to the millions of years for every developed species there should be a million years worth of limb growth. Eye growth. Statistically .. Feel free to prove me wrong ... There should be more years worth of growth than fully functioning feature. So statistically we should see more underdeveloped features than developed. It is statistically impossible then to see only well adapted creatures. You can not say it is because only well adapted creatures pass on Thiet traits. Because this creature has Been alive developing that trust for millions of years. Again where are all the transitions, partially developed animals.

THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gradual change is through mutation. Each individual is a transition between ancestor and descendant. So, OVER TIME traits that are advantageous are continued to assure species success and less advantageous traits die out.

Unsuccessful adaptations die out quickly.

Humans, from 200,000 years ago to now...have changed. Skin has lightened as humans moved northward because they needed to absorb more vitamin D. A dark skin in northern latitudes was NOT a successful mutation, and due to lack of vitamin D absorbed from the sun, they would die out. So, being lighter skinned was advantageous, being darker skinned was not.

Statistically, you WILL NOT see some goofy half wing or half eyeball...IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GO DO SOME RESEARCH and then come back. You are arguing ridiculous baloney that does nothing more than repeatedly demonstrate your utter UNWILLINGNESS to understand.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Thank you dogmahunter you want me to talk about dogs. Let's do it. According to evolution once there was a lizard that over millions of favourable mutations formed a wing.

Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution. You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ... Less developed species can apparently become more diverse. Yet be honest with me will dogs ever fly? As an evolutionist you have to say it was possible. Now back to my point how will that wing develop? Slowly over millions of years... With many weird dog like creatures, or will it suddenly shoot out a wing. Think about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I
For a species to develop it must gradually change over mlions of years. We must assume then that for every feature that is developed it will take millions of years for it to grow.

There's your error. You assume that whole point of evolving, for example, wings was flight. This is just not true.

When features develop, they need to have immediate function / advantage for the creature in which it develops. And it goes slowly and gradually.

Wings didn't originally develop for flight. The evolved from one generation to the next and got repurposed to be used as tools to fly.

Pinguins have wings. They don't fly. Their wings are as functional and vital to pinguins as your hands are to you or as wings are to an albatros.

You need to get it into your head that the present state of life was not the "purpose" or "goal" of evolution. Evolution (natural selection) acts upon the generation that is alive at any particular time. There is no planning or intent going on. There is just "what works TODAY" - where "today" is the period in which a change takes place.

Each one can fully function in its environment

Yes, because if that wasn't the case: it would die and not reproduce.

Now back to the millions of years for every developed species there should be a million years worth of limb growth. Eye growth.

And there is. And in each and every stage of that development, that particular stage was usefull and functional to the species at that time, in that habitat.

So there is no such thing as "half-an-anything".
Is a pinguin's wing "half a wing"?

It is statistically impossible then to see only well adapted creatures.

If you would actually understand what evolution theory is all about, you'ld understand that in context of an evolutionary history, we would expect nothing BUT well adapted creatures for the habitat they lived and survived in.

Not well adapted creatures do not survive or reproduce. They die or even go extinct instead.

Again where are all the transitions, partially developed animals.

You have been showed several in this thread, and you handwaved all of them away based on creationist religious nonsense and strawman.

There is no reason to think that continuing to show you more examples is going to have a different result.

As said multiple times: it's painfully clear that you are not planning on accepting anything as evidence. You have decided in advance that you won't be convinced that you are or might be wrong. And on top of that, you are arguing against a strawman version of evolution. So, I see no point in giving you more examples.

 

[Nithavela]

Thank you dogmahunter you want me to talk about dogs. Let's do it. According to evolution once there was a lizard that over millions of favourable mutations formed a wing.

Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution. You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ... Less developed species can apparently become more diverse. Yet be honest with me will dogs ever fly? As an evolutionist you have to say it was possible. Now back to my point how will that wing develop? Slowly over millions of years... With many weird dog like creatures, or will it suddenly shoot out a wing. Think about it.

Yes, who has ever heard of mammals developing flight?
That's a really good point!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thank you dogmahunter you want me to talk about dogs. Let's do it. According to evolution once there was a lizard that over millions of favourable mutations formed a wing.

Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution. You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ... Less developed species can apparently become more diverse. Yet be honest with me will dogs ever fly? As an evolutionist you have to say it was possible. Now back to my point how will that wing develop? Slowly over millions of years... With many weird dog like creatures, or will it suddenly shoot out a wing. Think about it.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Thank you dogmahunter you want me to talk about dogs. Let's do it. According to evolution once there was a lizard that over millions of favourable mutations formed a wing.

Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution. You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ... Less developed species can apparently become more diverse. Yet be honest with me will dogs ever fly? As an evolutionist you have to say it was possible. Now back to my point how will that wing develop? Slowly over millions of years... With many weird dog like creatures, or will it suddenly shoot out a wing. Think about it.

You DO understand there was a great extinction 65mya that wiped the dinos out completely, right? The Chixalub impact that wiped out the the big critters.

Dogs are dogs. They were not birds, they did not descend from birds. They descended from wolves about 10,000 years ago. Selective breeding is what has given us the various breeds we have today. That's human intervention, not evolution.

Now, go do some research and quit showing your utter ignorance and refusal to do something about it.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I'm right here.

Could yo

You might want to look at these:

Caudipteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Jeholornis
Jixiangornis
Microraptor
Sinornithosaurus
Cryptovolans
Archaeopteryx
Pedopenna
Xiaotingia
Aurornis
Anchiornis

You know what, just do a search on the whole paraves, avialae and tetrapterygidae CLADES.

Yes, that's right, there are entire clades of archaic bird-dino forms that show exactly the kind of mosaic transitional features you're looking for...

And, just to note, I've pulled those dino-bird transitionals from a thread I answered in December 2015. Nothing you're arguing here is new, novel or difficult to answer.

I suggest that instead of imagining problems, you start researching answers.

Hi I have started researching ... But I am on a mobile phone so can't cut and paste those names. I did some looking up of bird evolution and I don't see ant transitions. To help me coul you provide links to pictures of those birds.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

ONE. MORE. TIME.

EVERY individual IS a transition between ancestor and descendant. You've been told this over and over. It seems you're looking for Dinocroc, Sharktopus, and the other ridiculous things shown on SyFy channel movies.

IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You DO understand there was a great extinction 65mya that wiped the dinos out completely, right? The Chixalub impact that wiped out the the big critters.

Dogs are dogs. They were not birds, they did not descend from birds. They descended from wolves about 10,000 years ago. Selective breeding is what has given us the various breeds we have today. That's human intervention, not evolution.

Now, go do some research and quit showing your utter ignorance and refusal to do something about it.

Man you are not getting my point... Evolution says a dog could potentially grow wings ... Otherwise how did dinosaurs do it .. They evolved became more diverse. What I am asking is how would a dog grow wings. Don't fight by telling me to research ... Answer the question what is its process of evolution to becoming a flying dog. Tell me please.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now back to dogs... Will it ever regrow a wing ... According to evolution. You according to evolution have to say yes, why do I say that ... Less developed species can apparently become more diverse. Yet be honest with me will dogs ever fly? As an evolutionist you have to say it was possible. Now back to my point how will that wing develop? Slowly over millions of years... With many weird dog like creatures, or will it suddenly shoot out a wing. Think about it.

I'm not even going to dignify this nonsense with a response.

Instead of contuing with the nonsense that I already addressed several times, please answer the question about dogs that I actually asked you. You know, the whole point why I brought up dogs in the first place.

I'm trying to teach you something about evolution here, because as I have said, you have a wrong idea on how it is said to work. I'm not even trying to convince you that evolution is correct. Just that you actually understand what it really says. Surely, you don't mind actually KNOWING what you are arguing against, right?

So please, answer the question....

Was the dog ancestor of a chiuwawas, st bernards, great danes and pitbulls a "full species / breed" of its own, or was it "half a breed"?

And if the latter, half-what exactly? Half chiuwawa, half st bernard, half great dane, half pitbull,... all of the above?

Or do you agree that it would be rather stupid to talk about "half a pitbull" when talking about that particular dog species / breed? Also keep in mind that when that ancestor breed lived, pitbulls, great danes, etc didn't exist yet.

Think it through and take your time if you must.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I am dusting my sandals off..I am tired of dealing with someone who refuses to listen, refuses to understand, and has shown amazing amounts of both pride and arrogance.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Man you are not getting my point... Evolution says a dog could potentially grow wings ... Otherwise how did dinosaurs do it .. They evolved became more diverse. What I am asking is how would a dog grow wings. Don't fight by telling me to research ... Answer the question what is its process of evolution to becoming a flying dog. Tell me please.

Ok...I'm gonna end up in CF jail but I've really had it.

DOGS WILL NOT GROW WINGS. They do not need wings for anything.

You've had this explained over and over but if you want to be a neanderthal idiot with an idiot's understanding of things, go for it...I am sick to death of morons like you trying to tell me I'm wrong. You're wrong, you're misinformed and you're a blooming idiot.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

So what if a dog suddenly needed wings how woul it get them.

Apparently it is good enough for a dinosaur to grow them but not a dog.

Tell me if I am so stupid what is different between a fully functioning dinosaur growing wings and a fully functioning dog. You say it happens with a dinosoar how did it happen?