Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

[Justatruthseeker]

If I had $400,000 for each time I've corrected you I would be a multi-millionaire. Unfortunately neither the money, nor your understanding have been forthcoming.

You mean if you had money for every time you imagined actually correcting me while ignoring the facts you’d be rich. To which I agree....

You can do this because of everything from photographs of assembled skeletons, through artists impressions, to cartoon representation that is readily available. Lay all these examples side by side and a five year old child will identify them as the the same beast. A skilled vertebrate palaeontologist could bore your death pointing out the many errors in most of these. In short, a stocky quadruped with three horns and a frill is automatically called a Triceratops by anyone exposed to dinosaurs.

Except for the fact we have many Ceratopsians and not one of them do paleontologist call a triceratops except the triceratops...... despite your claim to the contrary....

Besides any adults forms they incorrectly classified.

Really? Here are some pointers for you. I expect you will ignore them, claim you have never been corrected and fail to send me my $400,000, but other readers with open minds may find them informative.

1. Triceratops is a genera, not a species. There are at least twoTriceratops species, so your assertion that they "didn't change in their entire existence" is nonsensical, as it implies all Triceratops were the same. See this wikipedia article.

Ceratopsia, get it right....

Ceratopsia - Wikipedia

2. There is ongoing debate as to whether the genus Torosaurus was actually a mature form of Triceratops. Here's a thought Justatruthseeker - if shown a picture of a Torosaurus one would say they were looking at a Triceratops. The experts say there are major differences, either due to maturity within a genus, or being a different genus. Yet you claim they all look the same. It just so happens you are completely mistaken - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the experts have imagined these differences. See this paper and included references.

Yes, there are always those that will refuse to correct incorrect classifications....

You just mistake baby and adults as separate, like the bird Cassowary changes its frill from juvenile to adult. As the triceratops frill changes from juvenile to adult.....

3. More to the point, analysis of fifty or more Triceratops skulls reveals evolutionary change through the Cretaceous, thus completely refuting your assertion that there was no change. See this research.

Minor anatomical differences that in every case each one is recognizable as a triceratops.....

Your repeated unfounded assertions do you no personal credit, but worse than that they cast doubt on your belief system. If I wished to undermine belief in Christianity then making exactly the sort of assertion you indulge in would be an excellent way of going about it, since making claims that are trivially refuted ruins your credibility on all subjects.

Except we see none was refuted except in your own mind.....

From your claims of change which are still easily recognizable as triceratops, hence they are called triceratops.

To your failure to understand juveniles do not always look like adults during the growth cycle, but are still the same animal.... No evolutionary change, just a normal growth cycle......

 

[Ophiolite]

You mean if you had money for every time you imagined actually correcting me while ignoring the facts you’d be rich. To which I agree....


Except for the fact we have many Ceratopsians and not one of them do paleontologist call a triceratops except the triceratops...... despite your claim to the contrary....

Besides any adults forms they incorrectly classified.




Ceratopsia, get it right....

Ceratopsia - Wikipedia



Yes, there are always those that will refuse to correct incorrect classifications....

You just mistake baby and adults as separate, like the bird Cassowary changes its frill from juvenile to adult. As the triceratops frill changes from juvenile to adult.....

Minor anatomical differences that in every case each one is recognizable as a triceratops.....


Except we see none was refuted except in your own mind.....

From your claims of change which are still easily recognizable as triceratops, hence they are called triceratops.

To your failure to understand juveniles do not always look like adults during the growth cycle, but are still the same animal.... No evolutionary change, just a normal growth cycle......

You have presented us with your true Fairie Dust:

False, Ignorant, Asinine, Ridiculous Ideas. Evidence Doesn't Support Using Them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have presented us with your true Fairie Dust:

False, Ignorant, Asinine, Ridiculous Ideas. Evidence Doesn't Support Using Them.

I notice no evidence, just the standard insult because you got no evidence except the false ones presented which didnt understand juveniles dont always look like adults....

But how quick you turned to insults when shown your errors....

Typical evolution tactic when the PR fails....

 

[Ophiolite]

I notice no evidence, just the standard insult because you got no evidence except the false ones presented which didnt understand juveniles dont always look like adults....

But how quick you turned to insults when shown your errors....

Typical evolution tactic when the PR fails....

Your signature contains an insult in every post you make. I am not suprised you don't like having it turned upon you.

Your supposed refutation of my post requires no response as it lacks both logic and coherence. If you want to try again, bringing those missing ingredients to the mix, I'll respond, but lightweight nonsense will be ignored.

Edit: deleted a superfluous "is"

 

[Jimmy D]

What have triceratops got to do with “unrealised genomes” anyway?

 

[Speedwell]

What have triceratops got to do with “unrealised genomes” anyway?

They too disprove evolution because they are unique. There are no proto-triceratops nor post-triceratops.

 

[lasthero]

What have triceratops got to do with “unrealised genomes” anyway?

Justa has a handful of pet arguments, and he likes to find a way to make any topic he appears in about them, even if it doesn’t really fit.

Just be happy he hasn’t gone into electric universe territory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your signature contains an insult in every post you make. I am not suprised you don't like having it turned upon you.

Your supposed refutation of my post requires no response as it lacks both logic and coherence. If you want to try again, bringing those missing ingredients to the mix, I'll respond, but lightweight nonsense will be ignored.

Edit: deleted a superfluous "is"

My signature contains no insults.

Unless you feel you are using Fairie Dust and take it as an insult because you realize it for what it is.....?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They too disprove evolution because they are unique. There are no proto-triceratops nor post-triceratops.

They don’t like hearing they appear fully formed and the only way they can even attempt to connect anything together is with “missing common ancestors” in each and every instance.....

There’s no proto-anything. They are all missing....

That or calling babies and adults separate species....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They don’t like hearing they appear fully formed and the only way they can even attempt to connect anything together is with “missing common ancestors” in each and every instance.....

There’s no proto-anything. They are all missing....

That or calling babies and adults separate species....

"Show me a fossil of every generation that has ever existed or I'll assert that they didn't."

It was a truly awful, lame argument the first time anyone used it. It hasn't improved in any way through your repetitive usage.

 

[tas8831]

Each such form appears in the fossil record at a certain lowermost stratum with its peculiar set of traits that remains stable up to the time of the form's extinction. This is the typical pattern seen in fossils.

And yet if creation were true, should not ALL fossils of ALL extinct AND extant creatures first be seen in the SAME lowermost stratum?

 

[tas8831]

They don’t like hearing they appear fully formed and the only way they can even attempt to connect anything together is with “missing common ancestors” in each and every instance.....

There’s no proto-anything. They are all missing....

That or calling babies and adults separate species....

This picture shows a pair of achondroplastic parents and their three normal phenotype children (second row) and their 1 achondroplastic child (first row, left):

Where are the fully-formed intermediates between the achondroplasic parents and the normal children?

 

[Ophiolite]

My signature contains no insults.

Unless you feel you are using Fairie Dust and take it as an insult because you realize it for what it is.....?????

I notice you have avoided the opportunity to make a second attempt at providing a coherent, evidence based refutation of my earlier post. I can think of three possibilities to account for this:
1. Your last effort was the best you could muster, so you are trying to deflect attention.
2. You realise your argument is worthless, so you are trying to deflect attention.
3. You are assiduously working on a masterpiece of coherence, relevance and quality, loaded to the gunnels with evidence.

If it is 1 or 2, it's not working. I do hope it is number 3. If so, give me a heads up on when I can expect to see it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Show me a fossil of every generation that has ever existed or I'll assert that they didn't."

It was a truly awful, lame argument the first time anyone used it. It hasn't improved in any way through your repetitive usage.

Not asking for one of every generation, just “one” of your claimed “missing common ancestors” that split to become something else.

What is actually lame would be claiming something split, you just don’t know what....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This picture shows a pair of achondroplastic parents and their three normal phenotype children (second row) and their 1 achondroplastic child (first row, left):

Where are the fully-formed intermediates between the achondroplasic parents and the normal children?

Where is the “missing common ancestor that split to become human and ape?

You got lots of apes, lots of humans, lots of ancestors of apes, but not any that supposedly split.

Not just for humans, but for EVERY SINGLE CREATURE IN EXISTENCE......

Could overlook your missing a few hundred thousand, but you are missing EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they never existed....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet if creation were true, should not ALL fossils of ALL extinct AND extant creatures first be seen in the SAME lowermost stratum?

Assuming day 6 happened at the same time as day 3.

Assuming we ignore the Hebrew word “hayah” which means to become or fall out and pretend it means “was” instead.

Assuming a lot of assumptions people make....

 

[Jimmy D]

Not asking for one of every generation, just “one” of your claimed “missing common ancestors” that split to become something else.

What is actually lame would be claiming something split, you just don’t know what....

Example retracted.

 

[Jimmy D]

Where is the “missing common ancestor that split to become human and ape?

You got lots of apes, lots of humans, lots of ancestors of apes, but not any that supposedly split.

Not just for humans, but for EVERY SINGLE CREATURE IN EXISTENCE......

Could overlook your missing a few hundred thousand, but you are missing EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they never existed....

See above.

Besides, didn't you used to claim that Humans degenerated into chimps or something equally bizarre?

 

[Jimmy D]

Assuming day 6 happened at the same time as day 3.

Weren't plants on day three? So all the plants appear abruptly in the fossil record at the same time?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is actually lame would be claiming something split, you just don’t know what....

I agree. Intellectual honesty is lame. It's far more acceptable to rely on dishonesty and falsehoods - that's how you do so well in these discussions, isn't it?