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.
I did not specify any particular one.
In this forum, I never pretend. I don't have to.
If you know something I do not know, I will beg you to tell me.
Show me something you know, but I may not. There has to be something like that.
A bunch of them. It is a type of study.
Right. But people use individual case to generalize into a population character . That is very common way people drew conclusions.
I told you the problem with the math.
If I recall correctly from high school, it would be cladistically wrong to call that creature a "monkey", just like it would be cladistically wrong to call the ancestors of Tiktaalik "fish".
A "fish" is a specific modern animal (well, "group of animals"...) and a very different beast then the sea life that existed before any creatures roamed the land. Doesn't the same go for "monkeys"?
Perhaps I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Are you saying that the succession of fossils records the events of a single day, or at most of two days?Animals are created on DAY5, then on DAY 6. In each DAY, there must be hours and minutes.
Does that suggest animals are created in sequence?
But in science, it is even MORE clear. Not everything popped up on the earth at the same time. So, what is wrong with the sequence?
On the other hand, perhaps you're right and I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Perhaps I should try to learn about cladistics. Still, the essential point is that we share common ancestors with monkeys, whatever we call those ancestors.
Where does the organic material in the comet come from?
You said that we do not know.
But the creation story does suggest a reasonable answer. They came from plants.
The problem comes from using non-evolutionary terms to describe an evolutionary tree. Terms such as monkey, ape, fish, and reptile are what we call paraphyletic:
A group should include an ancestor and all of its descendants, not just some of them. This is why primate , amniote, and gnathostomata are better than monkey, reptile, and fish, respectively.
Instead of trying to force paraphyletic terms into becoming monophyletic terms, perhaps we should just use the monophyletic terms.
But you said that a scientific paper said what you said. If you do not give the name of the paper, it suggest one of two things:
So it's one or the other. As they say on the playground, put up or shut up.
- You have either forgotten the name of the paper, which then puts the onus on you to find it to present it or
- You are just lying.
No, you said "For example, a paper showed two similar bones, and said one evolved into another.
What kind of evidence is that? It is not scientific at all."
That is very specific to a single paper. What paper is that? I am very adamant about this because I am more than sure that a paper published in a credible peer review scientific journal would not present a statement as you presented it. It appears you are taking something out of context from said paper. That is why I want to see the paper and discuss its content and context.
Are you saying that the succession of fossils records the events of a single day, or at most of two days?
Are you saying that the Ordovician system, which has a maximum thickness of at least 12 km, was deposited, with its trilobites and graptolites, etc. during one part of a day; that the Jurassic system (maximum thickness of 13.4 km) was deposited, with its ammonites, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc. on the same day or on the next day; and that the Eocene series (maximum thickness of 9.1 km) was deposited, with its teleost fishes, primitive whales, etc. was deposited within two days of the Ordovician?
This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Can you give me an answer?
Probably from the solar nebula, and before that from the molecular cloud that the Sun and the planets formed from?
I am speechless. Can you explain how this idea works?
No it is not.
The key point: If organic molecules existed in the nebula, where do they come from and how long could they last without been destroyed by cosmic rays? The answers are: WE DO NOT KNOW.
I don't understand this. How would wood chips get into an interstellar cloud? They must have been part of a plant, but there are no plants in interstellar space, or even on any planet other than the Earth. Remember that the planets formed from the solar nebula, so there were no life-bearing planets to provide wood chips or any organic matter to the nebula.Now imagine a piece of wood chip floated in the nebula, what could happen to it?
There is no way in the English language for the statement: "For example, a paper showed two similar bones, and said one evolved into another", to indicate anything other than a single paper. You are citing something specific within that paper. With you still making the claim and refusal to share that paper, I can conclude to nothing other than you just made it up. Or perhaps, it is just an obfuscation to distract our attention away from the original challenge for you to explain the fossil record contained in sedimentary strata without evolution using science and logic. We are still waiting for you scientific presentation.
Of course it is obviously a common way, in any language.
View attachment 168514 View attachment 168515
First, astronomers have discovered 194 interstellar and circumstellar molecules, fifteen of which have ten or more atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules). Second, we can actually see interstellar molecular clouds, as dark nebulae. As you can see from the attached images, these dark nebulae are opaque; radiation cannot penetrate through them, so their molecules are protected from destruction. As I understand it, the molecules are adsorbed onto interstellar dust grains, which eventually become parts of comets or asteroids.
I don't understand this. How would wood chips get into an interstellar cloud? They must have been part of a plant, but there are no plants in interstellar space, or even on any planet other than the Earth. Remember that the planets formed from the solar nebula, so there were no life-bearing planets to provide wood chips or any organic matter to the nebula.
Also, interstellar molecular clouds have masses of thousands or even millions of solar masses (up to a trillion Earth masses); it would take more than a planet's worth of wood chips to supply the observed quantities of organic molecules.
More obfuscation. We are still waiting for you to explain the fossil record without evolution using science and logic.
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?