Thats my point. You are unable to differentiate between members of the same species, and simply subspecies within that species. Oh I agree they are all the same Kind. I say one mated with another and a different one came into existence.
No, your point was that all T rex fossils are the same and showed no evidence of evolution.
You ignore the actual empirical observation and believe one evolved into another. Even if no transitory ones exist, and all are fully formed from the first one found to the last one found.....
I assume that you've studied the fossil record from the cretacious period in some depth if you feel confident enough to declare the findings of mainstream paleontology wrong.
Maybe you could point out what is wrong with Brusatte and Carr's model of Tyrannosaur evolution.
The phylogeny and evolutionary history of tyrannosauroid dinosaurs
In comparing our parsimony and Bayesian phylogenies, the most striking finding is that the two methods produce extremely similar consensus trees. The overall structure of both trees is identical: a basal clade of proceratosaurids, an intermediate grade of small-to-mid-sized tyrannosauroids, and a derived clade of very large apex predators. Most of the small details are identical as well: the fairly large Sinotyrannus and Yutyrannus group with proceratosaurids instead of the large-bodied tyrannosaurids; Dilong, Eotyrannus, and Xiongguanlong are successively closer outgroups to Tyrannosauridae; Bistahieversor and Appalachiosaurus are non-tyrannosaurids; tyrannosaurids are divided into Albertosaurinae and Tyrannosaurinae subclades; and the long-snouted alioramins are basal tyrannosaurines. These results are encouraging, as they show that the major outline of tyrannosauroid phylogeny is recovered by multiple methods that differ substantially in their starting assumptions, at least when these methods are applied to the same dataset.
It seems that your assertion that T rex arrived "fully formed" and that no "transitory ones" exist is wrong, why do you ignore the avialable evidence?
You mean your excuse for letting them ignore the scientific definitions?
No, why would anyone use the fact that outdated views of the universe have been discarded due to new data being available as an exuse for "ignoring scientific defintions". You aren't making sense now.
Every one of them was wrong.....
LOL, every scientific paper written about Coelacanths is wrong? That's a bold statement. I actually asked what specifically was wrong, please cite the peer reviewed papers and show how they are mistaken. You're starting to sound like Ken Ham at this point.
Oh I say just as we observe the Afro-Asian come about. Just as we observe the Chinook come about. Its you that's refusing to make your theory follow empirical evidence...
That doesn't answer where the African and Asian came from, you know, the question I asked.
Why wouldnt it be found after fish? Water creatures were created before crawling things..... crawling things before dinosaurs. I fail to see how this fact points to evolution being your lack of transitional forms?
Yeah, the first tetrapods capable of leaving the water just happened to be specially "created" during the Devonian, and they just happen to be incredible similar to the lobe finned fishes of the time but with relatively minor adaptations. Could this creator only manage adaptations of previous creatures, because that's what it looks like.
We'll ignore the obvious elephant in the room for the moment shall we..... That is "fowls" preceding "creeping things".
Oh I agree every single one of them is found fully formed
No "half formed" specimins, who'd of thunk it?
Its not the facts that are in dispute, but the arbitrary classification of the same Kind as separate species, by the same people that watch finches interbreed before their eyes, yet cant follow the definitions they wrote. That's what is dismissed, the PR hype. Its you that dismiss the fact that every one is fully formed, that just like dogs all those T=Rex are merely different breeds or subspecies, not separate species....
You have yet to demonstrate how percieved problems with the taxonomic system affect the Theory of Evolution.
No, where they left the Ark and dispersed, we agree.
LOL, and you accuse me of ignoring scientific evidence.
Then quit ignoring it and pretending it happened by mutation far, far in the past since you know how it works. Dont let the truth offend you, its just the facts. And dont try to change this into a racial discussion. Its not my fault they want to call the races races instead of subpecies, like they should by their own definition.
I'm not accusing you of racism or trying to change it into a discussion of race.... I'm accusing you of insulting my intelligence by repeating that crap.... I am quite aware of what happens when members of two separate races "breed".
