proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Odd that you would post a picture of the mammal ear, since we have hundreds of fossils showing the transition. See Evolution of the mammalian middle ear

no since in both reptile and a mammal ear you will need at least 3 parts for its minimal function. so you dont solved the problem of ic.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evidently you still think opinions are verifiable.

That is what scientists do for a living.

 

[xianghua]

Hearing is a particular form of detecting vibration. Vibrations can be detected with much simpler things than anything we recognise as an 'ear'. E.g. like the hair cells in a fish's lateral line.

Like eyes and sight, if you actually look at how it developed, there is no sudden leap that cannot be explained through standard evolution.

actually even in this system we still need at least 3 parts: a part that can detect vibrations, a part that can transmit it to the brain (or other system that can process a signal) and a part that can process the signal.

 

[doubtingmerle]

no since in both reptile and a mammal ear you will need at least 3 parts for its minimal function. so you dont solved the problem of ic.

Huh? You say "no", then you ignore everything I said and go back to repeating the same claim I had argued against.

Again, you are hung up on the 3 minimal parts to get the first ear. Got it. I don't agree, but suppose it is true that the only way to get the first ear was by special creation. Then what? We have strong fossil evidence that, after the first ears existed, the mammalian middle ear bones evolved over millions of years. And I was wondering what you have to say about all that evidence. Did God kickstart the first ear with those 3 parts, and then wait a hundred million years for the mammal ear to evolve from there?

Let me guess. You will ignore my question again, and talk again about the first ear needing 3 parts, yes?

The problem is that you are saying nothing. All you do is argue against evolution, but you refuse to say what you think happened. What a collossal waste of time. You have been here for many months, and yet you will not even tell us what you are arguing for.

 

[Aman777]

You didn't say "superior intelligence" before, you said reason.

Duh, it requires superior intelligence to reason. The legal system recognizes that and doesn't try those creatures who cannot understand the charges against them.

Are you saying that animals are incapable of learning... anything?

Of course not. I once paid a quarter to watch a chicken play the piano. Animals cannot judge between good and evil. Only Humans and God can. Gen 3:22

Now you're just babbling. "Superior intelligence..." To what?

To EVERY other creature on planet Earth. It's the difference between reasoning Humans and innocent animals. Another difference is that animals don't post because they don't have the necessary intelligence. It's ALSO why I know that you are not an animal. Amen?

 

[pitabread]

Scientists are idiots ... lost and on their way to a place prepared for the devil and his angels.

Like I've said before, creationists will happily disparage science and scientists, but they sure don't seem in a hurry to give up the benefits thereof.

Does this make them hypocrites? I'd imagine so.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Animals cannot judge between good and evil. Only Humans and God can. Gen 3:22

Ah, then apparently my cats have divine intelligence. For they seem to know that, if two cats are blocking the path for the third to reach the feeding bowl, that the moral thing to do is to step to the side and let the other cat in.

 

[xianghua]

So what is your claim? That God used special creation to form 3 basic parts of the ear, and then left the rest of the mammallian middle ear to evolve over many millions of years? As Paul and I have pointed out to you, the evolution of the mammal's ear from the reptile-like ancestor is well documented.

[

realy? so i will use this image to prove that truck evolved from a car:

(image from Commercial Car Insurance | Girard Insurance)

now, you can say that those vehicles cant reproduce. but even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution.

and we also dont have any stepwise way to evolve many system in those vehicles. like my hearing example in a living creature.

As others have explained to you, the question is only one of the timing

but its predate most of those suppose "transitional fossils". so those fossils are in the wrong order. and again: if a fossil in the correct oroder is evidence for evolution then why a fossil in the wrong order isnt evidence against evolution? are you saying that both fossils in the wrong and correct order are evidence for evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I've said before, creationists will happily disparage science and scientists,

That's right.

If the shoe fits ...

... but they sure don't seem in a hurry to give up the benefits thereof.

Would you stop shopping at Walmart if you heard Sam Walton was a creationist?

Would you give up labeling God's creatures with those goofy labels if you heard Carlos Linnaeus was a Christian?

Does this make them hypocrites? I'd imagine so.

Join the club.

 

[pitabread]

Would you stop shopping at Walmart if you heard Sam Walton was a creationist?

Given I've never shopped at Walmart in the first place, that's a moot point.

A better example would be something like visiting an psychic or hiring someone to locate water pipes via dowsing. Those I would never actively support.

Would you give up labeling God's creatures with those goofy labels if you heard Carlos Linnaeus was a Christian?

The difference is I don't go around calling Christians "idiots" nor otherwise disparage them for their religion.

Join the club.

... ?

 

[Aman777]

Ah, then apparently my cats have divine intelligence. For they seem to know that, if two cats are blocking the path for the third to reach the feeding bowl, that the moral thing to do is to step to the side and let the other cat in.

Sure, and my daughter is convinced that they think. You can convince others of many false ideas. Just look at Trump.

 

[xianghua]

Salamanders have hearing yet lack an outer ear and a tympanic middle ear, so your claim is obviously wrong.

if it can hear then its s till mean that it has a system that can detect sound waves. and again it means at least 3 parts as i showed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Scientists are idiots ... lost and on their way to a place prepared for the devil and his angels.

But there's hope, if they'll just put down their clipboards and listen.

OK, I will put down my clipboard. You talk. I will listen.

Can you answer my question, please? You say the earth is about 6021 years old, and that rocks that appear to be older than that were created with an appearance of age. OK, but we find dino fossils in those ancient rocks. If the earth was created in 4004 BC, with the entire completed Jurassic layer in place from the beginning, how is it that we find so many dino fossils down there? Were they all just put there at creation? Did none of those fossils in the Jurassic layer ever live?

 

[pitabread]

now, you can say that those vehicles cant reproduce.

Which we know they can't. So it's a rather silly argument to try to make, if you're attempting to satirize evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sure, and my daughter is convinced that they think. You can convince others of many false ideas. Just look at Trump.

Maybe your daughter is right.

How do you know that cats cannot think and make moral decisions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What is it about "New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates you don't understand?

What we don't understand is your claim that, since we do not find a series of intermediates at the species level, therefore such intermediates do not exist. We have documented many intermediates at the genera level and above. You simply ignore that, and go back to your infamous 50 word quotes about the species level.

 

[xianghua]

Try reading the article. Which I did.

The fossil is not 'in the wrong place'. It simply shows that the evolution of whales seems to have taken less time than previously suggested. I.e. 4 million years rather than 15 million years. The existence of the fossil is not in any way in conflict with the theory of evolution. It's only in conflict with the theory that the evolution of fully aquatic whales took 15 million years. Which isn't that newsworthy a theory to be shown to be (likely) wrong

(image from The evolution of whales)

so again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then why a fossil in the wrong order isnt evidence against it?

 

[xianghua]

Not in the wrong place, in exactly the right place to fill a gap and answer an important question of how fast certain traits evolved.

The find is further confirmation of how whales evolved.

its actually in the wrong order as you can see:

 

[Speedwell]

if it can hear then its s till mean that it has a system that can detect sound waves. and again it means at least 3 parts as i showed.

Not a problem for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Disappointed at your cartoon drawing? Umm no. How about a link where I can get a look at the actual fossils?

when we realy check the data we can find many fossils in the wrong place, as i showed above with the whale example.