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.
Lining up pictures of animals that appear similar is their way of proving evolution actually happened and that transitional species exist. It is pictures on paper.
They have never actually observed, tested or repeated said "evidence".
Are you exactly like your mother in every detail? no? why not? because you had a father who is different from your mother, the combination of both of them make you different from them, one might have blond hair the other dark,
now you have hair different from both of them, you are unique just like everyone else.
We have changed in the last 4 or 5 hundred years, we are much taller and bigger now, better diet means bigger people,
5 hundred years ago 6ft was huge, Henry the VIII was 6' 2'' tall, (when the people around him averages 5' 6'' or 7'')
he was a giant because he had grown up eating only the very best food.
Our equations and laws are approximations. There's no guarantee that they can give us ultimate insight. As the saying goes, the universe is under no obligation to make sense but scientists are. We make good predictions but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this means we can or have described the universe.You find that man made equations describe regularities we find in nature. It is an exceptional coincidence that the universe could be described by a man made construct that just happens to work in an infinite way.
Not only does it work in an infinite way, we live in a finite universe. How does one explain the concept of infinite in a finite universe? Another coincidence?
I mean like the Theropod to bird evolution or for instance the land mammal transitional to ocean dweller. There should be many incidences of life forms changing throughout the millions of millions of years in the past to present era.
If a bird evolved into something more than a bird, that would invalidate evolution. Changes aren't supposed to occur like that.
You could literally say that about anything, though. No matter how much you know about something, there's always the chance that there's any number of things you don't know. Like, say, in a court case - no matter how much evidence one side gets, there could be a number of things that they're missing which overturn the verdict or switch things around. Should that fact keep a jury from making a decision, though?
So how does that relate to the theropod to bird evolution? Do you feel that a reptile to bird transition the same thing?
So how does that relate to the theropod to bird evolution? Do you feel that a reptile to bird transition the same thing?
This is a poor analogy. Yes, we can say that we don't always know everything and in fact, there have been many changes with new discoveries in all areas of science.
If all we found were random bones strewn all over strata in no particular order, you might have a point.
However, that's not what we found. The 'pictures' you mention were found in the order they're presented. You never find birds appearing before the ancestors they descended from. You never find whales appearing before the ancestors they descended from. It doesn't happen. All you see is this progression. Period. All you see are the subtle changes as you go higher and higher.
You can repeat this canard all you like - it's simply not true. Evolution is constantly tested, repeated and observed. Just like plate tectonics, just atomic theory.
You do realise that there is more evidence and analysis involved than slapping any two fossils next to each other, right? They have to be dated to the right geological period (easily verifiable with multiple independent dating techniques), they have to exist in the right ecological niche (it's unlikely to find a rabbit fossil in the Jurassic oceans), they have to exhibit the myriad anatomical and skeletal features common to their ancestors and descendants (most Creationists are oblivious about just how much information exists within a single thigh bone - size, weight, gait, posture, taxonomy, age, diet, metabolism, etc), etc.Lining up pictures of animals that appear similar is their way of proving evolution actually happened and that transitional species exist. It is pictures on paper. They have never actually observed, tested or repeated said "evidence".
Don't forget that even here, there's no actual transition: therapods never become something other than theropods, and all their descendants are still theropods. The term 'bird', inasmuch as English allows, refers to a specific subset of theropods. Birds are still therapods, just as cats are mammals and whales are vertebrates. It's in line 1 of the Wiki article.So how does that relate to the theropod to bird evolution? Do you feel that a reptile to bird transition the same thing?
Yes, and always we've refined out theories, rather than replace them wholesale.This is a poor analogy. Yes, we can say that we don't always know everything and in fact, there have been many changes with new discoveries in all areas of science.
You've seen it personally? Are you sure that is the way they are found?
I hope you aren't repeating that weak "E.Coli can do something it could already do" experiment.
I don't think you understand what evolution is.
You've seen it personally? Are you sure that is the way they are found?
Where? In what lab? Can I see it on you tube for instance? I hope you aren't repeating that weak "E.Coli can do something it could already do" experiment.
I don't think you understand what evolution is.
That doesn't refute my point. Noether's theorem holds true even if the action of physical systems don't have any differentiable symmetry. The theorem says that such systems have conservation laws, not that our universe is such a system.
No. My opinion was that IF we have 99.999% of the puzzle, then we basically know what's going on. It is a separate matter to know THAT we have 99.999% of the puzzle.
Which wasn't my point. My point is that not having 100% of the evidence doesn't preclude us from making decisions. If we have 90%, 95%, 99%, we can still come to conclusions: we can bring the murderer to trial, we can conclude the veracity of evolution, etc.
My point is that it is incorrect to insinuate that we must have absolutely every iota of possible evidence before we can come to conclusions, and that if we have a gnat's breath less than 100% then we cannot come to any conclusions.
Key phrase: "The fact that we don't have every fossil in existence means that we have only pieces of the puzzle. Which means we don't have the entire picture of life and its history", implying that not having every fossil in existence is somehow to our detriment. What matters is the fossils we do have, not the fossils we don't.
We have millions of fossils overflowing museum drawers, and they all without exception point to the features predicted by evolution (correct distribution in strata, correct geographical distribution, correct radiometric dates, correct anatomical and skeletal changes, etc).
Actually, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago left open huge ecological niches, and we see a flurry of new forms and features develop to fill that gap. Flowering plants themselves are only 140 million years old - this means that something as mundane as fruit is relatively new, geologically speaking.
However, what makes you think we should see something more than a bird evolve into another species of bird? Evolution demands that birds only evolve new bird species. If a bird species ever evolved into a mammal species, then evolution would be disproven at is most fundamental level.
I still don't know what you expect evolution to produce. I still need an answer to that most basic of questions: What do you mean by "transitions in the same vein as in the past"? What do you mean by "species to species evolution"? What do you mean by "we should see something more"? I ask for examples because I don't actually know what it is you're asking.
Then you understand that 'transitional species' is not a proper piece of evolutionary jargon. The term would apply to all individuals of all species. I am a transition from my mother to my daughter, as is my mother before her, and her mother before her. Each woman holds hands with her daughter and her mother, going all the way back through the generations. Each individual looks basically the same as their immediate ancestor and immediate descendant, but if we go back tens of thousands of generations, we see a smooth change.
There is no 'transitional' form, as there is no transition.
Don't forget that even here, there's no actual transition: therapods never become something other than theropods, and all their descendants are still theropods. The term 'bird', inasmuch as English allows, refers to a specific subset of theropods. Birds are still therapods, just as cats are mammals and whales are vertebrates. It's in line 1 of the Wiki article.
But new separate kinds pop up all the time.Good. So we finally agree. There are separate kinds that no matter how much evolution occurs, they never become something that they were not.
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?