If you can't tell us how you determine if a fossil is inconsistent with evolution or how you determine that a fossil is un-evolved, why should we take your claims seriously?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not today, perhaps tomorrow. I am elderly, I have pains in my brain, and there are times when my brain painly breaks down. My best wishes for your future.
maybe it has been.
maybe it's forbidden to put evolution in a bad light like that.
I can not find the drawing, I can find a citation.
"Take, for instance, the increase in body size which is one of the most striking trends in popular presentations of the horse series. In fact, the increase in size betweenHyracotherium and Equus was by no means gradual, constant, or progressive. An analysis by MacFadden (1987) of 24 ancestral-descendant species pairs revealed that 19 showed body-size increases. However, the remaining 5 lineages showed size decreases. There are even lineages within the horse family tree that show size decreases followed by reversals back to increased size (MacFadden 1984; Webb and Hulbert 1986; Hulbert 1988)." http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/ti...evolution-mainmenu-65/55-horse-evolution.html
Of course the new information means they have to rework the theory. What I am pointing out is how reluctant evolutionists are to let go of the old theory esp when the visual aids are so appealing. Even when they have been shown to not be true. Even Haeckel's embryo drawings are still in use even though it was shown to be far from accurate a long time ago. It reflects peoples mistaken ideas of evolutionary theory.
Maybe you forbid yourself to listen to scientists when they say that evolution is well evidenced.
attacking the messenger (NY times) is a logical fallacy.
i believe boyce is more than qualified to talk about this stuff.
Statements like this cause wounder to if we are all speaking the same language, that statement is so vague, it is impossible to refute it, scientists on both sides of the argument will unanimously agree with your statement!
Ok sorry that was Armoured I was having that conversation with. As long as we are on the subject here is what Gould said about this.I can't recall making one comment on these boards regarding horse evolution
in order for you to scientifically state this, then you must accept that each kind of animal has a unique origin and DID NOT arise from a single source.
as a matter of fact, i believe science is slowly coming to that very conclusion.
There are hundreds of drawing on the internet that Evolutionists use to misrepresent Horse Evolution. This is suspicious to me that they misrepresent themselves in that way and then try to accuse others for what they are guilty of.
Ok sorry that was Armoured I was having that conversation with. As long as we are on the subject here is what Gould said about this.
As Gould writes,
"This is life’s little joke. By imposing the model of the ladder upon the reality of bushes, we have guaranteed that our classic examples of evolutionary progress can only apply to unsuccessful lineages on the very brink of extermination—for we can linearize a bush only if it maintains but one surviving twig that we can falsely place at the summit of a ladder."
"Modern textbook diagrams suggest a unidirectional and linear evolution of horses. These justly criticized illustrations give the impression that through a series of progressive changes, horses evolved to their current, perfected form. Not at all true. Rather modern horses are just one twig within the big bushy and multidirectional evolutionary history of the group that includes modern horses and their ancient horsey relatives. There is nothing particularly special about living horses, save that they are the only surviving members of a once very diverse group." http://ncse.com/blog/2014/09/horse-is-horse-course-course-as-long-as-you-know-what-horse-0015875
I have given quotes to whois written by the actual scientists. Whois refuses to acknowledge them. Here is a good example:
"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32
Even when faced with this direct quote from Koonin, whois continues to claim that the entire tree of life concept needs to be torn down for all groups of species, AND USES KOONIN AS A SOURCE.
"Whether there is life remaining in the TOL beyond this usage or whether it has to be replaced by new, probably web-like representations of genome evolution, is a question of major interest for phylogenomic studies and will continue to inspire research far into the future."
More than reasonable:
I take no issue with this statement, methodology or questioning leading to more research on the subject.
Do you take issue with the statement I quoted?
Well, there are body plans. No one will mistake a fly with a mosquito, they have separate body plans, "Bauplan" in German. The fossil record is rich with Billions of Fossils by which we able to visable see species generations over long times observed. If evolution was true scientists ought to establish the evolutions of many phylogenies, but to date, they have not established even one. The timeline of the fossil record only shows each body plan of a species, appears suddenly, and un-evolved.
what koonin actually said about this matter can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab and in his paper from NCBI "the origin at 150".If I understand the article and related publications on the subject, this is ongoing research, no one is declaring anything just the possibility; thus, making observations and perusing the science.
Did I miss something?
what koonin actually said about this matter can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab and in his paper from NCBI "the origin at 150".
the paper from NCBI must be paid for though.
One of the casualties of the genomic revolution is the concept of the Tree of Life, one of the key metaphors of biology since Darwin. And whether the Tree can or should be salvaged, according to Koonin, remains a matter of serious debate.
The Nye/Ham debate was fun. But perhaps it’s time for a Dawkins/Koonin debate.
maybe it has been.
maybe it's forbidden to put evolution in a bad light like that.
nonsense you say?
do not ever think like that armoured, because i have been the direct recipient of such a sham.
and it makes me even more determined to expose this garbage for what it is.
Of course Darwinist evolution has an influence on the killing of babies and harvesting their parts. In Darwinism, a human has no inherent value other than as a mechanism to pass along genetic information. Killing, and partitioning, the sack of chemicals isn't destroying anything of value.
Seriously, think about what you are saying, there was a time when the USA was the greatest country in the world; which begs the question, what changed?
Yes, we can worship the God of our choosing as long as we keep in the privacy of our homes...Attend the Church of our Choosing as long as you don't deny marrying same sex couples, teach your kids religion of your choosing but they can't take a Bible to read in study hall. Just keep it in the closet folks.
If I understand the article and related publications on the subject, this is ongoing research, no one is declaring anything just the possibility; thus, making observations and perusing the science.
Did I miss something?
what koonin actually said about this matter can be found in the link on my profile under the information tab and in his paper from NCBI "the origin at 150".
the paper from NCBI must be paid for though.
I like this idea; though, I would give Nye the win on that debate, I really wanted to reach in help Ham:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?