Subduction Zone
Regular Member
What did you mean that they did not work? This is epic denial on your part, of course they worked. You obviously do not understand the goals of those experiments.
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.
What did you mean that they did not work? This is epic denial on your part, of course they worked. You obviously do not understand the goals of those experiments.The experiments that they were working on didn't work, so the site didn't give any useful information.
What did you mean that they did not work? This is epic denial on your part, of course they worked. You obviously do not understand the goals of those experiments.
So? There is a lot of cutting edge research going on in this topic, almost anything that you see will be out of date.They presented their program, then said it was out-of-date.
Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?It's not about beliefs. It's about how you interpret the evidence.
Again, you have the actual paleontologist in question saying that your interpretation is complete bunk. And if you knew anything about paleontology, you'd probably understand why statements like this were so dumb.
As Horner himself pointed out, not many - the issue is very specific. And Atheos basically gave you a layman's primer on how ontogeny works and how we go about assessing these things - which you apparently ignored completely. Should I email Horner again and ask him some clarifying questions? Do you even care about how these scientists came to these conclusions? Seriously, I'm kind of lost here - you obviously have no understanding of the subject, and when people show up who do, citing others who teach the subject, you don't seem to be interested in what they have to say. So I'm a bit confused on that count.
I mean, I could spend a fair amount of time looking up the relevant peer-reviewed papers. I could email Dr. Horner again, waste more of his valuable time, and get some more answers. I could ask some other people I know who know some things about the subject. However, I'd like to have some sort of assurance that I'm not just talking to a brick wall.
Poorly worded. Fossils show a change in appearance that perfectly matches what is expected if one uses the theory of evolution. Creationists still have no explanation of the fossil record.Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?
No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.
No, what Horner found that of the 12 main groups of North America alone - not counting minor groups or other continents, is that 2 of every 3 classified as a separate species were not. You choose to believe that the loss of 5 groups of dinosaur has no effect on any others. Yet you make this claim before even testing all the other groups. So what evidence we do have is that 2 of every 3 dinosaur studied in depth have been incorrectly classified.
Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????
Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?
No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.
No, what Horner found that of the 12 main groups of North America alone - not counting minor groups or other continents, is that 2 of every 3 classified as a separate species were not. You choose to believe that the loss of 5 groups of dinosaur has no effect on any others. Yet you make this claim before even testing all the other groups. So what evidence we do have is that 2 of every 3 dinosaur studied in depth have been incorrectly classified.
Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????
Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????
Which you do according to your beliefs. Every fossil found the same from the first to the last. Please explain how you interpret that as meaning one species becomes another species?
No, I have one evolutionist telling me 2 of every 3 were incorrectly classified, but it doesn't effect evolution in the slightest which is based on those classifications. I hear denial.
Save time, send me his email and I'll ask him myself. Unless you don't have it????
Or do you mean that every skeleton we find of a species is the same? Well, yeah - we have very limited dinosaur finds, and we classify those based on morphology.
And, in fact, we do have a whole family of tyrannids
Rather than your 4 left if it was 2/3rds. But here's the thing. Comparative ontogeny is essentially its own field within paleontology. People have been studying how to delineate young dinosaurs from entirely different species for quite a long time. Check this out:
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=ontogeny+of+dinosaurs&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Very first result on my end was a paper from 1997 examining the ontogeny of Centrosaurinae. 1997! That's almost two decades ago. This is not some new, foreign problem to scientists, and before you pretend that these new developments throw evolution on its head, I recommend you do some reading and see what, say, they know about synapsidae.
You mean tyrannosaurids. This is a tyrannid:
You don't understand. Evolution predicts the origin of populations blended by so fine gradations of differences that it would be difficult if not impossible to discern a nested hierarchy between their traits.
Now of course most of these would go extinct, but isn't it amazing that between all of extant life and even the most plentiful 95+ % of the fossil record of marine invertebrates, life always and only can be detected by highly distinct types
Never any evidence of this trait gradation and blending that you predict would be happening constantly over geologic time.
Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable.
But as with most things, Evolution resists falsification by simply accommodating failed predictions. We only see evidence of distinctiveness because no evidence to the contrary happened to be left over from the mystical Darwin fairies handiwork, of course.
This is why the school of Cladistics was not anticipated and had to be invented later on in the game. Evolutionists were not expecting to be limited only to comparing similarities of distinct types in order for their conjuring up imagined common descent relationships.
Are you serious? Practically all designs falls into nested hierarchies. All traits of designs can be sorted by their most common shared trait groups to their most unique. Nested hierarchies are virtually inevitable.
See, here's the difference between you and me: you actually know what you're talking about.By the way is there any resource like Medline for paleontology or Evo-devo, or do you just use Google Scholar?
Poorly worded. Fossils show a change in appearance that perfectly matches what is expected if one uses the theory of evolution. Creationists still have no explanation of the fossil record.
He did not such thing. Your math is astonishingly bad. He reduces 12 to 7, and was shown to be wrong in the article that I linked on triceratops. That means at best he could go from 12 to 9. And what you hear are facts. All you have done is to fixated on a talk that is clearly beyond your understanding.
Repeating your bad math does not help your case.
Once more it looks like all that you have is unsubstantiated nonsense.
This is simply not true.
Even within species, these branches exist.
It's called a family tree.
It's how we can tell your biological parents from non-biological ones.
I'ld say that it's not as distinct as you make it out to be.
I would expect to see lots of different species. Some of them very alike, some a bit alike, others not alike at all - yet still with some kind link, connecting all species.
And, off course, I'ld expect the anatomy to make sense in context of its age and location.
Really now?
You seem to be unaware that museums around the world are filled with hundreds of thousands of such fossils.
I notice that you didn't give any examples.
You just repeated your assertion, which is still left unsupported.
Show me any T-Rex that are not the same? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? I hear claims from you, but a decided lack of any fact.
.
I just posted a paper that describes a sequence of transitional morphology in Triceratops fromT. horridus at the base of the Hell Creek Formation to T. prorsus at the top. What was that you were saying about there being no change?
You mean you posted a paper that shows different breeds of the same exact species.
It's what we observe today - so why would I postulate incorrectly something completely different in the past we have never once observed? Didn't you read my "real world example" - versus imagination - of the Chinook from the English Mastiff and Husky?
Excuse me, you don't see how phenomenally dishonest this is? First you say they're all the same, then when someone points out that they are not all the same, you claim "Yeah, but they're all different breeds of the same species". Ignoring for the moment that no, they aren't, and we know they aren't, and ignoring for the moment how persistently dishonest and unreasonable your examples based on dog breeds are (I'll get to this later), the fact is that you made a challenge, got an answer, and completely ignored it. I mean, what are you looking for? Two skeletons of the species Triceratops that are of clearly different species? That's absurd.
Let's make something clear here. Comparing dog breeds to anything found in nature is simply not a good example.
Ironically, even Answers In Genesis has you beat when it comes to understanding the science behind dog breeding (although their conclusions are asinine). See, what happened with the various breeds of dog is that we isolated mutations within populations of dogs, and explicitly bred for those mutations. Two differences here compared to what we see in nature:
And of course, throughout this, most of the genetic material was unchanged. Breeds of dogs were changed by humans. They do not mirror almost anything in nature, let alone most of the fossil record, and using them as an example is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.
How am I being dishonest? Have you ever seen a Triceratops fossil that was not a Triceratops?
So then you want me to accept that when you find another dinosaur later in the fossil sequence, that it magically evolved instead of what we observe, is nothing more than a different breed of the same Kind?
So you want us to take nature and not compare it to nature?
Show me any change in any species living now that shows change over time until it is paired with another breed of that same Kind? You can't.
Chinese man (breed) would stay Chinese until they mated with a Caucasian (breed) or any other. You see nothing but minor variation within the breed until it pairs with another breed of that same Kind.
Show me any T-Rex that are not the same? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? I hear claims from you, but a decided lack of any fact.
Your math is still atrocious. If he removed 2 of 3 that would have left 4. And he was wrong on Triceratops. I have not checked the others. Also there are many many many more dinosaur species than just those 12 or 7 or whatever you want to call it.12 groups of dinosaurs to 7. And did so by removing two of every 3 except for Triceratops where he removed one. Get your fact straight. See timeline 17:50 on the timeline and go dispute with him if you like.
In his comedic attempt to not ruffle feathers.
T-Rex - Nanotyrannus extinct (1 of 1 your best odds 50% of being correct or incorrect)
Pachycephalosaurus - Stigimoloch and Drocorex extinct (2 of 3)
Triceratops - Torosourus extinct (1 of 1 - best odds again 50%)
Edmontosorus - Anatotitan extinct (1 of 1 - best odds again 50%)
So we should just flip a coin to see how many others you got wrong, it's a 50/50 situation, with one being even worse.
Once more you show you can't even count. 12 to 7 and even if he happens to be wrong - which is still hotly debated in the paleontology community means 12 to 8 not 7. Repeating your bad math does not help your case either.
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?