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.
Exactly ---
Now assume that time itself, i.e. your 14 billion years, is comprised of only 900 billion seconds.
You'll run out of actors in this movie, before you run out of frames.
Evolutionary change, however, isn't so smooth. So you might get a period of just white or black (i.e. little change) with relatively short periods of rapid evolutionary change. It's those shorter periods of change in which finding transitional fossils is key.
Well --- in my opinion --- evolution is a cheap fps movie that isn't worth watching.
But the argument overall i think is that you don't need a fossil from every generation that ever existed to show evolution. All it takes is a few key fossils. This is done in math all the time.
Heck, you don't need fossils at all. There's plenty of other lines of evidence for evolution, but for some reasons creationists fixate on fossils.
Like I said, that picture that depicts an ape walking behind cro-magnon, walking behind neanderthal, walking behind Homo sapiens is misleading --- in my opinion.So?
That just demonstrates that you don't understand how the fossil record serves as evidence.
Firstly, it's a lot more complete than you seem to realise, secondly, it's not just the fact that the fossils are transitional, but how old they are, where they're found, etc
Ugh, I don't even know where begin to pick apart that QV, there's just so much wrong with it.
In other words, there are probably billions and billions of pictures you should be able to put between each one.
What do you mean, 'which fossils'?What criteria would you use to decide which fossils belong in the series, and in which order?
Heck, you don't need fossils at all. There's plenty of other lines of evidence for evolution, but for some reasons creationists fixate on fossils.
Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."
In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."
The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury was about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them, so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are lucky to have fossils at all.
Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution - ,In Pictures - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK
What do you mean, 'which fossils'?
Yet you guys will still continue to believe in evolution --- despite all these missing links that make this weak theory look like Swiss cheese.
You contend we don't have any fossils?? I content you don't have any Bibles.What do you mean, 'which fossils'?
Do we have any?
I contend we don't.
I bet SATAN made them to fool us.They never existed.
How so? Do you understand why the fossil record must by its very nature be incomplete? Or that there are numerous other lines of evidence that supports evolution?Yet you guys will still continue to believe in evolution --- despite all these missing links that make this weak theory look like Swiss cheese.
Like I said, that picture that depicts an ape walking behind cro-magnon, walking behind neanderthal, walking behind Homo sapiens is misleading --- in my opinion.
I don't for one minute believe an ape birthed cro-magnon, who birthed, neanderthal, etc.
In other words, there are probably billions and billions of pictures you should be able to put between each one.
Again, evolution is a cheap fps movie --- in my opinion.
I don't know, Aggie.Can you answer my question, AV? Id like to know how many transitional fossils you think we would need before we can justifiably say that the evidence supports evolution. If 14 of them between apes and humans isnt enough, how many would be enough?
Again, evolution is a cheap fps movie --- in my opinion.
Apparently not --- (which surprises me).Anyway, do you have anything worthwhile to add to the thread...
Perhaps it's because fossil evidence is easier to understand. DNA evidence is absolutely overwhelming, I agree, but it is hard for the layman to understand. It's much easier just to say, "Hey look, it's an apeman".
I ran across an excerpt from Dawkins new book. He uses a great analogy to explain why the creationist argument is bankrupt:
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?