The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[juvenissun]

Wrong. If you're ignorant about something at least do a quick google search to see if your pronouncements are going to make you appear foolish.

What is your next excuse?

Where is the transitional fossil?

 

[juvenissun]

If I would show you another skull of 35my, you'll ask for one of 40 myo or 10myo or whatever.

WHY NOT?
What is your excuse of not able to show that?

 

[Shemjaza]

Good point, talking about rate.

Let's look at a faster rate of change (I am not sure how much is that), how about, for example, change the length of a bone 1 cm per million of years. Is that fast enough? In that case, do we expect to find a fossil which has a bone 0.3 cm, or 0.6 cm longer in the fossil sequence? Or would we see one bone in one fossil, and another bone about 1 cm longer in another fossil, but not seeing anything else in the middle?

If the rate is slower, then my argument would become stronger.

Depends on the body part.

But we can demonstrate that mutations that completely warp the size and shape of an animal are possible within a matter of centuries and survivable by the species:

 

[Shemjaza]

WHY NOT?
What is your excuse of not able to show that?

Because not every species leaves fossils.

Evolution predicts the existence transitional species, not that we will always find every example to the impossible standards of Juvenissun in the 21st century.

 

[Jimmy D]

Where is the transitional fossil?

What?

 

[DogmaHunter]

WHY NOT?
What is your excuse of not able to show that?

I already explained it.

You are intellectually dishonest.

The picture I gave you, shows fossils that perfectly meet the criteria you yourself have given concerning what would qualify as a transitional. And you dissmissed it, just like that. For no apparant reason. You move the goalpost.

Nothing will ever satisfy you, as is shown again in the post quoted here.

This is what happens, when you clinge to unquestionable dogma's that don't allow you to ever accept a certain model of reality. Not because of anything in the model, but simply because the thing you believe dogmatically isn't compatible with it and that is all.

The fact of the matter remains....
@Heissonear claimed that "no transitionals exist".
I then asked to define what a "transitional" is.
You then defined it (in a somewhat clumsy way, but you did).
I then shared a fossil that perfectly matches this criteria.

And now here we are, with you objecting for no apparant reason and rather desperate to move the goalpost.

Now you ask another fossil in this series. Why would I show you one? What good would it do? We both know that it still won't be enough for you. You'll move the goalpost again or come up with some other lame excuse for why it doesn't count.

The fact is that you have already been provided with an example of exactly what you asked for. I don't see why any of us would have to invest more energy in your dishonest requests, because all of us know what the result will be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where is the transitional fossil?

Dorudon prozeuglodon

Dorudon - Wikipedia


PRO TIP: if you type the name of a species, like for example "Dorudon prozeuglodon" into a search engine (like www.google.com) and hit "search", you get all kinds of usefull information about said species. You can also add an additional term to the search string, like for example "Dorudon prozeuglodon fossil" to get more specific information.

 

[Jimmy D]

View attachment 221312

View attachment 221313

View attachment 221314

Dorudon prozeuglodon

Dorudon - Wikipedia


PRO TIP: if you type the name of a species, like for example "Dorudon prozeuglodon" into a search engine (like www.google.com) and hit "search", you get all kinds of usefull information about said species. You can also add an additional term to the search string, like for example "Dorudon prozeuglodon fossil" to get more specific information.

Sorry, but LOL at it's dinky little hind legs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry, but LOL at it's dinky little hind legs.

Yeah, I noticed that too

 

[juvenissun]

Depends on the body part.

But we can demonstrate that mutations that completely warp the size and shape of an animal are possible within a matter of centuries and survivable by the species:

1. This feature may still to be verified. That means, a good part of the whole process is still speculative. Nobody is convinced that mutation made wolf to dog, or apes to human.
2. Even it is true, it can not explain the sheer abundance of fossil record. Mutation leads to a new animal should not be the normal process. Genetics and biology are still two disciplines with a very wide gap.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nobody is convinced that mutation made wolf to dog, or apes to human.

Who isn't convinced? Tell us.

 

[juvenissun]

Because not every species leaves fossils.

Evolution predicts the existence transitional species, not that we will always find every example to the impossible standards of Juvenissun in the 21st century.

Yes, that is the part of taphonomy. And I am not convinced on the idea that MOST life forms are not preserved. At some places (particularly in the interior of a stable craton), the persistence of an environment should be much longer than the time need of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

I already explained it.

You are intellectually dishonest.

The picture I gave you, shows fossils that perfectly meet the criteria you yourself have given concerning what would qualify as a transitional. And you dissmissed it, just like that. For no apparant reason. You move the goalpost.

Nothing will ever satisfy you, as is shown again in the post quoted here.

This is what happens, when you clinge to unquestionable dogma's that don't allow you to ever accept a certain model of reality. Not because of anything in the model, but simply because the thing you believe dogmatically isn't compatible with it and that is all.

The fact of the matter remains....
@Heissonear claimed that "no transitionals exist".
I then asked to define what a "transitional" is.
You then defined it (in a somewhat clumsy way, but you did).
I then shared a fossil that perfectly matches this criteria.

And now here we are, with you objecting for no apparant reason and rather desperate to move the goalpost.

Now you ask another fossil in this series. Why would I show you one? What good would it do? We both know that it still won't be enough for you. You'll move the goalpost again or come up with some other lame excuse for why it doesn't count.

The fact is that you have already been provided with an example of exactly what you asked for. I don't see why any of us would have to invest more energy in your dishonest requests, because all of us know what the result will be.

So much personal comments to cover the ignorance. You may walk now.

 

[juvenissun]

Dorudon - Wikipedia


PRO TIP: if you type the name of a species, like for example "Dorudon prozeuglodon" into a search engine (like www.google.com) and hit "search", you get all kinds of usefull information about said species. You can also add an additional term to the search string, like for example "Dorudon prozeuglodon fossil" to get more specific information.

At least, you begin to exam something you never know. That is not a bad thing.

 

[Shemjaza]

1. This feature may still to be verified. That means, a good part of the whole process is still speculative. Nobody is convinced that mutation made wolf to dog, or apes to human.
2. Even it is true, it can not explain the sheer abundance of fossil record. Mutation leads to a new animal should not be the normal process. Genetics and biology are still two disciplines with a very wide gap.

Wait, where do you think the genetic changes that turn wolves into dogs and dogs into totally new types of figs come from?

Mutations are observed, and once they appear either natural selection or human directed selective breeding can act on them.

 

[juvenissun]

Wait, where do you think the genetic changes that turn wolves into dogs and dogs into totally new types of figs come from?

Mutations are observed, and once they appear either natural selection or human directed selective breeding can act on them.

No where, may be from your implication (the two images)
Yes, many so-called evolutional features are observed in genetics and in microscopic world. But, apply it to fossils? He he, it jumps too too far and too too fast.

 

[Shemjaza]

No where, may be from your implication (the two images)
Yes, many so-called evolutional features are observed in genetics and in microscopic world. But, apply it to fossils? He he, it jumps too too far and too too fast.

What do you mean no where?

There are genetic differences between pugs and the wolves of Asia and Europe. Those genetic differences lead to pugs being tiny, flat faced, short haired and curly tailed.

Pugs and wolves are not fossils, we have their DNA. We know how mutations work and humans have been capitalising on them for a long, long time.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you mean no where?

There are genetic differences between pugs and the wolves of Asia and Europe. Those genetic differences lead to pugs being tiny, flat faced, short haired and curly tailed.

Pugs and wolves are not fossils, we have their DNA. We know how mutations work and humans have been capitalising on them for a long, long time.

You can not rule out this:
Because pugs and wolves are different, so their genetic informations are different.
When we can firmly say that genetic difference leads to life form difference, then I may consider my position again.

 

[Shemjaza]

You can not rule out this:
Because pugs and wolves are different, so their genetic informations are different.
When we can firmly say that genetic difference leads to life form difference, then I may consider my position again.

This has been demonstrated. When you induce genetic change you get morphological change.

I'm surprised that you seem to skeptical of the concept of genetics itself.

 

[xianghua]

Where is the transitional fossil?

here is a transitional form:

but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)