Why Evolution is True (3)

[createdtoworship]

Asking a creationist to deal with evidence in an honest manner is like trying to ask a calculator to divide by zero. They just can't do it.

same thing for you and your utilization of fallacy in the last few posts. it is also proper to adress the poster directly. not talk over them.

 

[Dizredux]

I already did three times with the peer review of avian design. that too is an example of csi.but nothing I can post will change your mind. as you dont even try to read the peer reviews posted while simultaneously denying their existence. I just keep posting them hoping you will address the evidence and stop the dishonest dodging.

Ahhhh, but we have seen your sources of "evidence" and they are very often quite lacking in any kind of credibility.

Conservapedia as a cited reference for Pete's sake.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

How can you prove these are transitional fossils and not merely individual extinct species?

I like to ask them to prove macro evolution which minimalistically is evolution between higher taxa than species (genus level transitions not just at the species level).

there is evidence that the original definition of macro evolution was such. as well as doubts from the inventor of modern taxonomy the different animals could share a common ancestor which is equivalent to one evolving into another genra of animal.

 

[justlookinla]

I like to ask them to prove macro evolution which minimalistically is evolution between higher taxa than species (genus level transitions not just at the species level).

there is evidence that the original definition of macro evolution was such. as well as doubts from the inventor of modern taxonomy the different animals could share a common ancestor which is equivalent to one evolving into another genra of animal.

They're not going to prove macro evolution. Simple as that.

 

[createdtoworship]

They're not going to prove macro evolution. Simple as that.

well,

they have no data to work with.

+ there would be hundreds of thousands of transitions, not just a couple (if macro evolution was valid).

 

[createdtoworship]

Ahhhh, but we have seen your sources of "evidence" and they are very often quite lacking in any kind of credibility.

Conservapedia as a cited reference for Pete's sake.

Dizredux

talking about lacking in credibility, you don't even answer questions regarding genesis:

"Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sinner, did not sin, because He didn't exist?"
__________________
this post was posted in the last forum, and I am still awaiting your response. (and diz was never seen in the thread again)

 

[justlookinla]

talking about lacking in credibility, you don't even answer questions regarding genesis:

"Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sinner, did not sin, because He didn't exist?"
__________________
this post was posted in the last forum, and I am still awaiting your response.

I think you'll find that Diz's interests lies in the area of defending Darwinism rather than disputing with the Godless who promote an atheistic creationist agenda.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think you'll find that Diz's interests lies in the area of defending Darwinism rather than disputing with the Godless who promote an atheistic creationist agenda.

yeah

 

[dad]

Why can't they be both a transitional species and individual extinct species?

Heck, why not! The connection is invented anyhow.

So to answer your question, a transitional fossil can be an extinct species. It can also be an offshoot of the direct ancestral line between modern species and a more distant ancestor.

The trick is do you know the difference?!

So what is the real test here? The test is that the theory of evolution predicts that transitionals should fall into a nested hierarchy.

So if you see what you think is a transitional, that is based on traits it shares with other animals. If an animal had a few extra traits than another, rather than be a separate animal creation, you insist it is all a progression.

That is a leap of faith.

For separate creation, there is absolutely no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy.

False! God has many traits! He is the Great Common Ancestor. He created animals with various different traits. That is why we see nested hierarchies. Even angels come in nested hierarchies! So do demons!

God did not give all the same traits to all creatures. Nothing about some creatures missing some traits and having others says evolutiondunit!!! Not in any way at all.

 

[completeme]

I'm not a scientist, but they know that the 1st law of thermodynamics - matter & energy can't be neither created nor destroyed. there are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. Every one who says the universe came into existance from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not a scientist, but they know that the 1st law of thermodynamics - matter & energy can't be neither created nor destroyed. there are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. Every one who says the universe came into existance from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics.

I like it, very good.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Why can't they be both a transitional species and individual extinct species?

Perhaps you are confusing the words "transitional" and "ancestral"? This is a common misunderstanding. When we say that a species is transitional we are making no claims of direct ancestor-descendant relationships. Transitional simply means having a mixture of characteristics between an earlier species group and a later species group (i.e. a mixture of characteristics between two taxa). Fossils don't come with birth certificates, so we don't make strong claims of direct ancestry. However, fossils do come with morphology, so we do use morphology to see how they compare to other species.

So to answer your question, a transitional fossil can be an extinct species. It can also be an offshoot of the direct ancestral line between modern species and a more distant ancestor. Darwin himself discussed how "collateral" descendants can be used to infer evolutionary pathways:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"
The Origin of Species: Chapter 6

Of course, separate creation of species will also result in species that have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. So what is the real test here? The test is that the theory of evolution predicts that transitionals should fall into a nested hierarchy. For separate creation, there is absolutely no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy.

So what do we find? We only find the mixture of characteristics that the theory of evolution predicts we should find. We find dino-bird transitionals, but not bird-mammal transitionals. We find ape-human transitionals, but not ape-dog transitionals.

Also, we don't test theories with evidence we don't have. That is why the whole "missing fossils" argument fails right at the start.

Explain the predecessors of homos sapiens and how we evolved (was it homos erectus that preceeded homos sapiens?).

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

well,

they have no data to work with.

+ there would be hundreds of thousands of transitions, not just a couple (if macro evolution was valid).

Exactly - statics backs you up.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Only creationists say the universe came from nothing no one else, we have never observed nothing, if you think we have and there is such a thing please tell us what you think it is?

By saying 'God did it' from nothing that must also violate the first law of thermodynamics, but we both know that didn't happen because you are trying to mix magic with reality.

Do you believe in atheistic evolution?

 

[dad]

I'm not a scientist, but they know that the 1st law of thermodynamics - matter & energy can't be neither created nor destroyed. there are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. Every one who says the universe came into existance from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics.

They do not mind violating all the laws of physics, which all go out the window for the bigbang creation fable. That does not matter at all. There is only one thing that matters to them, and that is that God be excluded from all their vain dreams and 'wisdom'. That is really what it is about, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

 

[dad]

As I said evolution is a mile high road block for creationism, you need to find a way over or around that before creationism can move one step forward, what a bummer, never mind keep on trying.

You cannot move around the fact that Jesus created the universe. Ever.

 

[bhsmte]

They do not mind violating all the laws of physics, which all go out the window for the bigbang creation fable. That does not matter at all. There is only one thing that matters to them, and that is that God be excluded from all their vain dreams and 'wisdom'. That is really what it is about, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Since when are you concerned with the laws of physics?

 

[dad]

By saying 'God did it' from nothing that must also violate the first law of thermodynamics, but we both know that didn't happen because you are trying to mix magic with reality.

Absurd. Laws came to exist after the universe. You can't hold up the silly 'first' laws of thermodynamics over creation!!

 

[bhsmte]

You cannot move around the fact that Jesus created the universe. Ever.

Some certainly can, all depends how one accepts evidence.

 

[dad]

Some certainly can, all depends how one accepts evidence.

The context that was used was for believers. One cannot wave away the fact Jesus created all things. As for unbelievers, they may be deceived for now if they so desperately choose to.