The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[Loudmouth]

What sterile animal was our common ancestor?

What animal that was incompatible with even its own kind was our common ancestor?

What animal went extinct, then served as our common ancestor?

The answer to all three is "none". So how can any of these be barriers since none of our ancestors experienced them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does god always refer to himself in the third person?

Um ... Hitch?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how can any of these be barriers since none of our ancestors experienced them?

You don't have any [common] ancestors.

 

[createdtoworship]

Google search "Transitional fossils" and you will get countless hits. Avoid incorrect sites like AiG and the Disco Toot and you could learn something.

not my job. I said that there hasn't been any transitions presented here accept about 2. And both have been rationally dismissed and not transitions.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have missed the point....do you think those differences outweigh the obvious general similarity?.

yes, I do.

they cannot interbreed so what difference does in make how similar they are. Once you have two different animal types, there is no compatibility period. And there has been no evidence to the contrary.

 

[createdtoworship]

How did you determine this? Please evidence your claim.

For example, please list the criteria you used to determine if a fossil is not transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps.



Transitional fossils should be in different genera. That's how Linnaean taxonomy works.

you want to learn linnaean taxonomy?

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

 

[Atheos canadensis]

yes, I do.

they cannot interbreed so what difference does in make how similar they are. Once you have two different animal types, there is no compatibility period. And there has been no evidence to the contrary.

Let's try again. Why do you keep making the point that one genus does not breed with another genus? I am not arguing that. Do you understand? Please give a direct yes or no answer.

I am arguing that one genus can arise form another and using the similarity of these two tyrannosaurs to illustrate the point. You think that they are too different for one to have arisen from the other based on a couple minor differences (i.e. one being larger and something about the teeth). And yet you think that all of life's diversity arose from a limited number of kinds. Actually I'm just assuming that; please tell me if that accurately reflects your beliefs. Do you think a sabertooth cat and a cheetah both arose from a created Cat kind? Did spider monkeys, squirrel monkeys and capucin monkeys all arise from within a Monkey kind?

 

[biggles53]

I havent seen one piece of evidence, got any. Please share.

None so blind.......

 

[biggles53]

I havent seen one piece of evidence, got any. Please share.

The ERVs that you and every other human being share with chimpanzees....

 

[biggles53]

Let's try again. Why do you keep making the point that one genus does not breed with another genus? I am not arguing that. Do you understand? Please give a direct yes or no answer.

I am arguing that one genus can arise form another and using the similarity of these two tyrannosaurs to illustrate the point. You think that they are too different for one to have arisen from the other based on a couple minor differences (i.e. one being larger and something about the teeth). And yet you think that all of life's diversity arose from a limited number of kinds. Actually I'm just assuming that; please tell me if that accurately reflects your beliefs. Do you think a sabertooth cat and a cheetah both arose from a created Cat kind? Did spider monkeys, squirrel monkeys and capucin monkeys all arise from within a Monkey kind?

He knows quite well what you are explaining.........

It's called wilful ignorance.....he has no other way to combat your argument, other than by playing dumb.....

 

[Atheos canadensis]

He knows quite well what you are explaining.........

It's called wilful ignorance.....he has no other way to combat your argument, other than by playing dumb.....

I'm beginning to get that impression, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment. But if he comes back with a post that reiterates that genera can't interbreed I will know his ignorance is willful rather than genuine.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't have any [common] ancestors.

The evidence says otherwise.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Loudmouth]

you want to learn linnaean taxonomy?

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional between humans and a common ancestor with apes?

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, I do.

they cannot interbreed so what difference does in make how similar they are. Once you have two different animal types, there is no compatibility period. And there has been no evidence to the contrary.

Chimps and humans are the same animal type. We are primates.

Bears and humans are the same animal type. We are mammals.

Trout and humans are the same animal type. We are vertebrates.

Sea cucumbers and humans are the same animal type. We are deuterostomes.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence says otherwise.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Then your question can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then your question can take a hike.

I will gladly join the group that follows the evidence.

 

[evoeth]

I will gladly join the group that follows the evidence.

Ah, but determining when the conclusion leads the interpretation of the evidence is the hardest thing in the world. Data informs theory and theory informs data. The hard part is knowing when to abandon theory for a new one.

The goal is not then to follow evidence, but to avoid the side that tells you up front that they can never possibly come to any other conclusion. That is, their theory is paramount. The Ken Ham's of this world announce up front, that they will discard or reinterpret any evidence so that his a priori theory remains intact.

 

[Loudmouth]

For those pushing sterility or lack of interbreeding as a barrier, perhaps they would like to explain the situation found for horses and donkeys. Only 1 in every ~10,000 female mules are fertile, and no male mules are fertile. Given that horses and donkeys are able to produce live young is a clear demonstration of their shared ancestry, and yet they are incapable of producing fertile offspring. At the same time, horses are all interfertile with other horses and the offspring are fertile. The same for donkeys.

How do creationists explain this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, but the determining when the conclusion leads the interpretation of the evidence is the hardest thing in the world.

Data informs theory and theory informs data. The hard part is knowing when to abandon theory for a new one.

The goal is not then to follow evidence, but to avoid the side that tells you up front that they can never possibly come to any other conclusion. That is, their theory is paramount. The Ken Ham's of this world announce up front, that they will discard or reinterpret any evidence so that his a priori theory remains intact.

technically the Ken Hams of the world do not have a "theory". Theories are by definition testable and the creationists will not devise an idea that can be tested. They have learned from past failures that that is not a good idea.

 

[Seipai]

not my job. I said that there hasn't been any transitions presented here accept about 2. And both have been rationally dismissed and not transitions.

Actually if you want to argue against something it is your job to check into the facts or lack of facts for both sides. Second there has been no rational dismissal of the tens of thousands of transitional fossils. In fact so much of the fossil record is now filled in that most fossils are transitional fossils by definition.

The only way to dismiss all of the transitional fossils in existence is irrationally.