Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Comments
-
The True Flesh wrote: »
Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent,
First of all, NOT USUALLY does not mean CANNOT AT ALL. Secondly, finding fossils are not extremely common and entire reconstructions of a being is rare; that is what is implied by that statement. They are not DIRECT evidence USUALLY, but that doesn't mean that we can't see evolution taking place through fossil records.
"The fossil record , for example, completely bears out the Darwinian theory that all land vertebrates are descended from fish, and that all mammals and birds are descended from reptiles. In other words, we find fish in early strata where there are no land vertebrates. And we find reptiles and amphibians before we find mammals or birds. Later we find both mammals and birds, alongside reptiles and amphibians.
If we were to find fossils of animals with backbones living on land, older than the earliest fossils of fish, or if we were to find mammals and birds in strata earlier than reptiles, or if we were to find whales in strata earlier than mammals, these would be major shocks to biological theory. They would probably not lead to the abandonment of evolution itself, but would upset some very well-established views about the specific course evolution has taken. If fossils of living things were found randomly in all ages of rocks, with rabbits, birds, and flowering plants in the earliest strata, evolution itself would have to be abandoned as an account of how the different kinds of living organisms came into existence." -
The True Flesh wrote: »
I NEED FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF INTER-CLASS EVOLUTION OF WHICH NO ONE YET HAS PROVIDED ONE SHRED.
CARE TO TRY AGAIN???
PEACE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish
Would you like to try again? -
Also if you look at a modern platypus, you will see mammal, bird, and reptile features.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2008-05-08-platypus-genetic-map_N.htm -
theres more fossil evidence to discredit evolution. this is fact.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The True Flesh wrote: »Without ANY FOSSIL evidence
falseJaded Righteousness wrote: »The True Flesh wrote: »
These are excerpts from your own links!!!
Do fossils validate common descent?
Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent, a purely anatomical resemblance to living species is a form of strong supportive evidence. Some more recent fossils contain traces of tissue or DNA that can be used to determine in what way the fossil is related to living species.[7] As mentioned below, this offers direct evidence for evolution.
The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".
Read the rest of it ? . Fossils are used to obtain DNA or tissue samples which in turn tell us what we need to know and is strong evidence of common ancestry. Where are the missing links? It's simply telling you what a missing link is. When scientists find a transitional fossil, it's called a missing link. No wonder you ? don't understand ? . You can't understand a ? damn paragraph
Yall cant understand ? damn common sense. It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT. smh...were talking about every ? species transitioning from other species over a loooong ass period of time. there would be more huge clusters of these fossils if that was the case. darwin was ? self-taught for petes sake. the ? was not A REAL SCIENTIST at all.
-
The True Flesh wrote: »
but y'all claim that human evolution is well proven and can't provide a single shred of convincing proof in this thread. What a fail.
Recent discoveries (Malapa)
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/malapa-fossils/fischman-text
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/malapa-fossils/lineage-graphic
-
Hundreds of fossils found shows when seas creatures started walking on land.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/scottish-fossil-trove-shows-when-sea-creatures-started-walking-on-land.html -
Yall cant understand ? damn common sense. It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT. smh...were talking about every ? species transitioning from other species over a loooong ass period of time. there would be more huge clusters of these fossils if that was the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
now shut the ? up
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Hundreds of fossils found shows when seas creatures started walking on land.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/scottish-fossil-trove-shows-when-sea-creatures-started-walking-on-land.html
so they all came from scotland? why aint they nowhere else? -
theres more fossil evidence to discredit evolution. this is fact.
don't talk about it, be about it -
Wow, really? These sorts of finds are rare because the process of fossilization requires unique situations. Look at the process that Egyptians used to preserve mummies. Without that, boddies would decay.
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/how_are_fossils_formed.html
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm
Btw, you don't have to be a scientist, paleontologist, or archeologist to find fossils.
http://www.waow.com/story/17419926/man-finds-rare-fossil-in-portage-county-backyard
And to answer your question, they have found other transitional land walking sea creatures, including this one in Canada.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?pagewanted=all -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
Yall cant understand ? damn common sense. It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT. smh...were talking about every ? species transitioning from other species over a loooong ass period of time. there would be more huge clusters of these fossils if that was the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
now shut the ? up
one fish? lol. how bout you shut the ? up.
The law of increasing entropy
explain how evolution and that can co-exist
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
google it ? . ? like forbidden archaeology, plenty private museums in europe show this ? . this ? has been known for years. if u aint heard of what im saying then its pointless discussing it with u because that means u didnt study all angles therefore ur position in this convo is inferior to mine. no point in u arguing against a point u dont know ? about. -
It's more than one, ? . Read up
-
The 2nd law of thermdyn does not support evolution but that doesn't mean evolution can't happen -- actually, it's an observable phenomenon. New discoveries in the future may change understanding of evolution or the second law and the universe as a whole, but it's reaching to hope or think that it disproves evolution.
-
? coming up with 2 or 3 odd species. how many species are on the planet? how many are claimed to have evolved from somewhere else? we gone need more proof...there are more ooparts (the real ones of course) then there are "transitional" fossils. on top of that labeling them "transitional" is speculative at best. basically they use the theory to prove the theory. its ? fossils fro a specific species. theres no proof of derivation besides speculation
I KNOW U STUPID ? . now produce more than one species. then explain the coelacanth. its still not enough to make the theory so ? undeniable as u cats claim. plus...im a college dropout and i have more scientific than darwin. literally. admit it...the ? fundamentally flawed. its just what u want to believe, ? . thats why u ? posting these same ass weak ass isolated fossils as "transitional species" ? that any ? with google can find on the first few entry pages when u put some ? in like "debunking creationism". get off darwins ? . his ? work and the dumb notion that the earth is 6000 years old are not the only possible realities, ? .Jaded Righteousness wrote: »It's more than one, ? . Read up
-
? coming up with 2 or 3 odd species. how many species are on the planet? how many are claimed to have evolved from somewhere else? we gone need more proof...there are more ooparts (the real ones of course) then there are "transitional" fossils. on top of that labeling them "transitional" is speculative at best. basically they use the theory to prove the theory. its ? fossils fro a specific species. theres no proof of derivation besides speculation
I KNOW U STUPID ? . now produce more than one species in the same are the fish were found. show me other later transitional species that can be directly connected with thst fish.. WITHOUT SPECULATION OR USING THE THEORY ITSELF AS PROOF OF ITS EFFICACY. then explain the coelacanth. its still not enough to make the theory so ? undeniable as u cats claim. plus...im a college dropout and i have more scientific knowledge than darwin. literally. admit it...the ? fundamentally flawed. its just what u want to believe, ? . thats why u ? posting these same ass weak ass isolated fossils as "transitional species" ? that any ? with google can find on the first few entry pages when u put some ? in like "debunking creationism". get off darwins ? . his ? work and the dumb notion that the earth is 6000 years old are not the only possible realities, ? .Jaded Righteousness wrote: »It's more than one, ? . Read up
-
Even the idea of 2nd law of Thermodynamics dismissing evolution has been debunked.
http://www.weirdcrap.com/scholarly/debunk.htmlNow evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot.
Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball?
The only thing i saw with forbidden archeology is that there are a few wack jobs toting faulty evidence with unsupported sensationalist conclusions. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Hundreds of fossils found shows when seas creatures started walking on land.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/scottish-fossil-trove-shows-when-sea-creatures-started-walking-on-land.html
? ..the first sentence of the article says it MAY show that. meaning nothing following that sentence, that relates to the event is fact. -
the ? was not A REAL SCIENTIST at all.
Real scientists cosign his theory though... and you are far from a real scientist so...
-
Because they aren't fool enough to make certain claims into fact without further research being that it was a new find. The point was that they find lots of fossils in one place and you claimed that it doesn't happen. But i suppose all the ? you posted is accurate even though they clutching at straws.
And how you gonna tell people to google something and then get tight that they googling something? -
? coming up with 2 or 3 odd species. how many species are on the planet? how many are claimed to have evolved from somewhere else? we gone need more proof...
elephants
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
horses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
And I already mentioned animals like mudskippers and the platypus which are in transitional stages between classes. Domesticated dogs evolved from the wolf; bats, flying squirrels.. etc. etc. how many species do you need bro?
-
so. ? if he wasnt a scientist then theyre educated ? morons. u cant make ? into truth if ur rotating on the foundation of the ? . what happened to logic ? ?Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
I already told your ass...... Darwin attempted to formulate the scientific ideas of genectics before the discovery of the genotype......
The only reason the ? caught on is because of ignorance and it sounded good....
Read some history, I even posted primary docs that illustrate the ? ....Dear Sir John Herschel
You must permit me to have the pleasure to thank you for your kind present of your Physical Geography.f2 I feel honoured by your gift, & shall prize this Book with your autograph. I am pleased with your note on my book on species, though apparently you go but a little way with me.f3 The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence on the subject.—f4 I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that ? designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed. But I ought to apologise for thus troubling you.—
You will think me very conceited when I say I feel quite easy about the ultimate success of my views, (with much error, as yet unseen by me, to be no doubt eliminated); & I feel this confidence, because I find so many young & middle-aged truly good workers in different branches, either partially or wholly accepting my views, because they find that they can thus group & understand many scattered facts. This has occurred with those who have chiefly or almost exclusively studied morphology, geographical Distribution, systematic Botany, simple geology & palæontology. Forgive me boasting, if you can; I do so because I shd. value your partial acquiescence in my views, more than that of almost any other human being.—f5
Believe me with much respect | Yours, sincerely & obliged | Charles Darwin
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3154
-
This discussion has been closed.