No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game.
The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species.
What are Ring Species, then? http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.htmlOf course I am, because evolution is false. There is no species evolving through mutation into another species. Just breed mating with breed producing new breeds, just as we observe in nature.
No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game. It's already been shown you got half of what you thought wrong and had your entire claimed lineage thrown into disarray. The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Excuse me, but you got that wrong too. Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species. You know, when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. Or when a Husky mates with a Mastiff and produces a Chinook. All within their individual isolated species. This is all you have ever observed, until we play the incorrectly misidentify things in the fossil record as separate species instead of breeds and begin the imaginary missing transitional game. I require no imaginary missing fossils. I just simply have to apply what we observe - breed mating with breed producing new breeds.
I need not pretend these are separate species, and claim non-existent transitional forms:
But just accept those dinosaur are just different breeds of the same species per observations and common sense.
They are no more separate species than dog breeds are separate species or cat breeds are separate species. There is no need at all to pretend otherwise - and direct empirical evidence that backs up breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species.
Evolutionists have nothing but a few bones of creatures never once observed in life - in which they classify them incorrectly based upon non-empirical pre-concieved beliefs, while ignoring how we know life propagates in the here and now. And then refuse to apply what we observe to the fossil record, or birds that clearly interbreed and produce fertile offspring and so are of one species. No difference between those finches or dogs or cats - except they classified them incorrectly based upon pre-concieved beliefs before they ever bothered to study them.
The horse series shows this very well:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
The chance of finding a particular species, especially one not long lasting or wide ranging is very rare.
Any of the early horses would be an example of transitional between species (such as Mesohippus), whereas Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik would be examples of transitional between classes.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
Okay, good! So, as it turns out, the theory of evolution means different things depending on whether you are reading a scientific source or a creationist source. The creationist version of evolution is contrary to the science version of evolution. What you are looking for (partial -- not conferring benefits) is predicted by the creationist version of evolution but actually contradicts the science version of evolution.
Evolution, as proposed by scientists, means the changes are all gradual (just like in the creationist version), but it also says that each change is independently beneficial. So, as to the eye, each change that is made has to be justified as an improvement (in the sense that it makes organisms that have it more likely to pass on their genes) over what was there, previously. The trivial light-sensitive dot that doesn't give an image is beneficial over not having the dot. After that, a change that makes the dot concave provides the benefit of directionality. And so on.
Scientific evolution requires each change to be independently justifiable in terms of the likelihood of passing on the gene. Therefore, if there is a partially-formed feature that isn't functional, that would support what creationist sources call the theory of evolution, but would actually undermine the real theory of evolution.
It is incomplete for single species. For some species, we only have one fossil that represents that entire species. Do you really think that species only ever had one individual in it?
We could use passenger pigeons as another example. That species was once so numerous that the flocks stretched for multiple miles, and they would blot out the sun. They numbered in the billions. Since then, we hunted them to extinction. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils we have? Just a handful, and that is from a recent species that numbered in the billions, perhaps trillions of individuals over the centuries.
How do you determine if a fossil has a fully developed body plan? Until you explain that, it is a meaningless term.
Until you define what features a fossil needs in order to be a precursor it is a meaningless term. For example, what features does a precursor for modern humans need?
The light sensitive eyespot is a transition between no eye and the more complex eyes we see in modern animals. If you won't accept that rather obvious transition, why would you accept the others? If a light sensitive eye is a "fully developed body plan", then it seems that the term really doesn't mean anything.
A fish with wrists is exactly what a transitional should be.
I don't know what you mean by creationist source. I'm not a fan of arguments that claim that Christians who believe in an intelligent agency behind the universe can't be "real" scientists. It's a genetic fallacy anyway. That's like saying atheist scientists can't be trusted because they are atheists.
That doesn't bother me though.I'm saying that when you read creationist descriptions of evolution, they are descriptions of a theory that is actually contrary to the theory of evolution as held by scientists.
Why? There is nothing wrong with science as long as you don't allow it to fill you with pride. In fact I see evolutionist have to continue to deny "science" to continue hold on to their faith. Since Naturalist worldview doesn't match reality they will continue to finding themselves running into "reality" like a blind man running into a wall. If you listen closely you can hear them smacking into the wall of truth. (Or like coyote fall off the cliff after being chased by the truck loaded with evidence)HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.
It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.
Yes, but this isn't cartoon physics we're dealing with and, in my opinion, if we try to fight fire with fire (science with science), we're the ones that will usually get burned.(Or like coyote fall off the cliff after being chased by the truck loaded with evidence)
Are you sure? Sometimes I feel like scientist are using cartoon physics especially when they admit something breaks all known laws of physics. Just make sure when you are fighting fire you got your shield of faith up.Yes, but this isn't cartoon physics we're dealing with and, in my opinion, if we try to fight fire with fire (science with science), we're the ones that will usually get burned.
I don't know. What do paleontologists have to say about it?
As one book I read stated, technically, every fossil found is transitional, but some more obvious than others.
No argument there!Are you sure? Sometimes I feel like scientist are using cartoon physics especially when they admit something breaks all known laws of physics. Just make sure when you are fighting fire you got your shield of faith up.
That doesn't bother me though.
As long as they don't believe in evolution ... that's good enough for me.
Creationism is evolution's antithesis, so they don't need to know the particulars.
HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.
It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.
That doesn't bother me though.
As long as they don't believe in evolution ... that's good enough for me.
Creationism is evolution's antithesis, so they don't need to know the particulars.
HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.
It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.
If I own a red car and someone says it's not red, but xlorph, should I know what xlorph looks like before I disagree?Arguing against an idea one doesn't understand is like flailing one's arms in the dark and calling it boxing. Before you argue against a thing, you should know what it is. Otherwise, it isn't even obvious that it's something that you need to fight.
You're asking me to choose between two bad scenarios.Which of these scenarios is preferable?
If I own a red car and someone says it's not red, but xlorph, should I know what xlorph looks like before I disagree?
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?