transitional species

[Tiberius]

Wow Darwin wrote a book and made a bunch of claims. So what?

So, Darwin had evidence, that's what.

 

[USincognito]

Every species is a transitional species. Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Please don't ever do that again.

 

[Gracchus]

How naive do you think we are?

"Naive" is not the word I would use.

The fact that we can see cosmic structures that are several trillion light years away shows that the universe is several trillion years old, as the light speed is constant.

That should be "billion" not "trillion".

A demonstration is when you can actually observe the transition taking place in real time. You can’t.

Well, creationists can't demonstrate miracles, or talking snakes, though they do provide some evidence of talking jackasses.

In other words, you make up fairytale stories to try to explain the features. Got it.

That's called "theology", and it is not of any use to us.

Creationism doesn’t need to make up fairytales to try to explain old bones. We already know where they came from.

Of course you don't have to make them up. Bronze and Iron Age theocrats have already made them up for you. And a good thing too, as otherwise you wouldn't have anything at all.

Would you prefer me to accept your new age creation myth?

Nah! We prefer to have you on the other team.

 

[acropolis]

Please don't ever do that again.

It is literally true.

 

[The Engineer]

That should be "billion" not "trillion".

Thanks for the correction.

 

[dysert]

What is factually incorrect? Has someone made fruit flies evolve into non-fruit-flies? Curious minds want to know.

Would someone mind answering please?

 

[Elendur]

Would someone mind answering please?

I think no one's answering because it's a really worn out argument.

Edit:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

 

[ranunculus]

Exactly, it has never been observed. Look at fruit flies because they have very short generations. You start out with a fruit fly, you end up with a fruit fly. No evolution has taken place.

This is factually incorrect.

What is factually incorrect? Has someone made fruit flies evolve into non-fruit-flies? Curious minds want to know.

I think he was referring to the fact that evolution does take place, even though fruit flies will never produce offspring that aren't also fruit flies.

 

[dysert]

I think no one's answering because it's a really worn out argument.

Thanks for responding. I'm not even trying to argue -- I just want to know if someone has ever produced non-fruit flies from fruit flies. That's all; just intellectual curiousity.


I'll look up the link you posted. Maybe that will tell me. Thanks.

 

[Elendur]

Thanks for responding. I'm not even trying to argue -- I just want to know if someone has ever produced non-fruit flies from fruit flies. That's all; just intellectual curiousity.


I'll look up the link you posted. Maybe that will tell me. Thanks.

 

[Doveaman]

Every species is a transitional species.

There are no living "transitional species".

A platypus is considered a transitional species

there are no transitional species alive today

The platypus is transitional. Period.

Why am I feeling dizzy?

 

[Doveaman]

According to the bible, The universe is ten thousand years old, at best.

Tree rings show it is 11000 years old, if you compare dead and living trees.

Wow!

Are you a young earth evolutionist?

 

[Doveaman]

Tree rings show it is 11000 years old, if you compare dead and living trees.

Are you saying the oldest known tree (dead or alive) is 11000 years old?

 

[Jamin4422]

Well, creationists can't demonstrate miracles, or talking snakes, though they do provide some evidence of talking jackasses.

Science can not show that it's not true. Esp. when the Bible is subject to interpretation. So it looks like Creationism and Evolution is pretty even on that one. Oh wait, evolutionists are not anti Bible either. Skeptics, scoffers, infidels and evolutions are not all one and the same are they?

 

[Doveaman]

Hmmmm. Maybe we need to define the term "transitional"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=hors...w=1280&bih=738

This is probably how the earth became repopulated after the flood.

I especially like this one:

 

[USincognito]

It is literally true.

No it is not.

Not every species supspeciates. Many go extinct.
Not every individual reproduces successfully - that's evolutionary theory 101.
And we all know what Creationists are asking for when they ask about transitional species so pithy one liners like that are crap arguments. They're asking for transitional species as understood from the fossil record - a specimin that exhibits the characteristics of two taxa higher than species.

Please don't do that again.

 

[USincognito]

Would someone mind answering please?

Whenever someone tells you that fruit flys should "evolve" into houseflies or spiders or mushrooms or birds, etc. etc., they don't know anything about evolution.

Beings never stop having the characteristics of their evolutionary inheritance. They may change greatly in form, but their descendants won't stop being what their ancestors were.

 

[USincognito]

Why am I feeling dizzy?

Because people are expressing the generally same idea with different words, some better, some more poorly.

Of course since you think you can define words to mean whatever your weltanschauung wants them to mean, that could be a source of confusion for you as well.

 

[The Engineer]

Are you a young earth evolutionist?

Are you kidding me?

Tree rings show it is 11000 years old, if you compare dead and living trees.
Radiocarbodating dates back several million years.
DNA decay dates back around several hundred thousand to a million years.
The fact that we can see cosmic structures that are several billion light years away shows that the universe is several billion years old, as the light speed is constant.

I forgot to say that tree rings show it is AT LEAST 11000 years old.
Radiocarbodating has been talked to death in this thread. RickG wrote a very good post which showed that, no, they are not unreliable.
You said nothing about DNA decay.
You said nothing about the speed of light and the fact that we can see distant stars.

You ripped a single line of my post out of context, but ignored EVERYTHING ELSE! Talk about selection bias...

Are you saying the oldest known tree (dead or alive) is 11000 years old?

No, I'm saying that by comparing the tree rings of living trees with the tree rings of dead trees, we can create a tree ring timeline which spans 11000 years. That doesn't mean the oldest tree of all time is 11000 years old.

Science can not show that it's not true.

Science can show just well that water can't be turned into wine.

By the way, the burden of proof is still on you, not on me.

Esp. when the Bible is subject to interpretation.

Because that means you can make of it whatever you want? Sure!

So it looks like Creationism and Evolution is pretty even on that one.

Even on what?

Oh wait, evolutionists are not anti Bible either. Skeptics, scoffers, infidels and evolutions are not all one and the same are they?

Well observed, Sherlock!

 

[Doveaman]

Not every species supspeciates. Many go extinct.
Not every individual reproduces successfully - that's evolutionary theory 101.

You needed evolution theory to figure that out?

I could have told you that.

Whenever someone tells you that fruit flys should "evolve" into houseflies or spiders or mushrooms or birds, etc. etc., they don't know anything about evolution.

That is what we would expect in order to be convinced a dinosaur can evolve into a bird .

Beings never stop having the characteristics of their evolutionary inheritance. They may change greatly in form, but their descendants won't stop being what their ancestors were.

Surely you jest: