The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[juvenissun]

Why is it laughable? I've certainly never heard any other reason to reject it.

There are many other reasons for one to reject evolution. It is not proven in sciences.

 

[juvenissun]

You can not answer a question with another question.

Of course I can. You need to learn that. It is an answer with double weight.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There are many other reasons for one to reject evolution. It is not proven in sciences.

Nothing is proven in Science, not even the electrical transistor gated logic device you used to communicate with people all over the world instantaneously just now... but it's because of science you have that.

 

[juvenissun]

Unless you wish to actually answer the question and explain how a "transitional fossil" is to be distinguished from a "non-transitional fossil", then you should simply not reply.

Do you know what is the essence of taphonomy? The idea is critical to fossil preservation. (so it is critical to understand the meaning of "transitional")

 

[juvenissun]

Nothing is proven in Science, not even the electrical transistor gated logic device you used to communicate with people all over the world instantaneously just now... but it's because of science you have that.

Good. Evolution is a model in science. So you know what does it mean.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are many other reasons for one to reject evolution. It is not proven in sciences.

Like what? The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Good. Evolution is a model in science. So you know what does it mean.

are you asking a question? Not sure, english isn't proper doesn't sensible here.

 

[juvenissun]

Like what? The evidence is overwhelming.

We do not know how did human rise.

 

[juvenissun]

are you asking a question? Not sure, english isn't proper doesn't sensible here.

Do you see a question mark in the sentence?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Do you see a question mark in the sentence?

Nope, but it reads like a question - hence the confusion. perhaps clarify what it is you're attempting to say?

 

[Jimmy D]

We do not know how did human rise.

I'd suggest that we have a pretty good understanding - not to mention evidence of common ancestry.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, the point in the OP stands.

No, it doesn't. It is based on (as I thought we agreed) undefined or not clearly defined terms, so the OP is in and of itself unclear.

If he wants to define his terms then present evidence for his thesis, sure we can discuss, but until then, there isn't an argument to respond to.

 

[juvenissun]

I'd suggest that we have a pretty good understanding - not to mention evidence of common ancestry.

If so, what is the origin of human? Use words that you do understand.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it doesn't. It is based on (as I thought we agreed) undefined or not clearly defined terms, so the OP is in and of itself unclear.

If he wants to define his terms then present evidence for his thesis, sure we can discuss, but until then, there isn't an argument to respond to.

It is a side point in the theme of the OP. The term could be defined better. But it is not necessary for the main message. Someone is digging into this side point and I am clarifying it now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course I can. You need to learn that. It is an answer with double weight.

Actually, it's an "answer" that only tries to avoid actually answering.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you know what is the essence of taphonomy? The idea is critical to fossil preservation. (so it is critical to understand the meaning of "transitional")

@Heissonear said that there are "no transitionals".
I asked him to define what he means by "transtionals" and what criteria distinguish a "transitional" from a "non-transitional".

Either answer to question or don't reply.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope, but it reads like a question - hence the confusion. perhaps clarify what it is you're attempting to say?

You're just a bad student, I reckon.

 

[juvenissun]

@Heissonear said that there are "no transitionals".
I asked him to define what he means by "transtionals" and what criteria distinguish a "transitional" from a "non-transitional".

Either answer to question or don't reply.

I am trying to help you to understand the term, but you don't want it. Suit yourself, you will not know what you are talking about.

 

[Jimmy D]

If so, what is the origin of human? Use words that you do understand.

No thanks. The scientific understanding of human origins is well documented.

I originally was addressing the OP when you chipped in suggesting that there are scientific reasons for rejecting the TOE. You have yet to demonstrate that this is the case, other than to state your ignorance of a particular area of study.

Who are these people rejecting the TOE for "other" reasons?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am trying to help you to understand the term

It doesn't seem like it.
But let's see how sincere you are.

Just complete the following list:

A transitional fossil, is a fossil which meets following criteria:
- ...
- ...
- ...
...