Reply With Quote
Here's one for you! It's a Basilosaurus.
How do I get my money?
So smack is what your really after not the truth?
Here's one for you! It's a Basilosaurus.
How do I get my money?
riiight, that article was supposed to demonstrate it, how? By making a load of excuses about why there's not far more transitional fossils, or why they're not popularized?
I'm not going to argue this subject any further as it was only my intention to defend the position, and don't ever make me read yet another template every other researcher uses to explain away the fact their findings make little sense in the broader frame and everyone knows it. My goodness what a msiplaced article, "we don't talk about transitional fossils because you wouldn't understand!" Then cue miamire , "It doesn't matter, Every fossil is transitional because Darwin said so!"
I don't care what you believe. Science told you to believe it, that's fine, as long as you don't force those beliefs down my throat we're all good.
Last edited by z0sa; 09-21-2009 at 02:54 PM.
Baloney. You stated that ZERO transitional fossils have been discovered. I demonstrated that your statement is completely false. As far as how much sense their findings make... I don't know how anyone can make it clearer to you? I find it surprising that you can't or won't accept the mountains of evidence in support of evolution.
I'm not going to argue this subject any further as it was only my intention to defend the position, and don't ever make me read yet another template every other researcher uses to explain away the fact their findings make little sense in the broader frame and everyone knows it. My goodness what a ing dumb article, "we don't talk about transitional fossils because you wouldn't understand!" Then cue miamire , "Every fossil is transitional because Darwin said so!"
Zero transitional fossils have been discovered, IMO. You and many scientists disagree, that's fine.
And evolution studies today completely revolve around microevolution, which is adaptation. Most "in the field" work is about adaptation, very little is done with macroevolution which continues to be swept under the rug as 'fact' without nearly enough conclusive evidence IMO. Therefore, it is adaptation where the mountains of evidence pile up.
Last edited by z0sa; 09-21-2009 at 03:00 PM.
I already posted the link why not send them your cut and paste from Google they could use a good laugh.Here's one for you! It's a Basilosaurus.
How do I get my money?
You think because you post a few whale bones and some drawings the whole evolution theory is correct? I thought you actually had some knowledge in these matters, and if you did have any you would know your hero Ernst Haeckel who made embryo charts that allowed Darwin to believe in Evolution in the first place was later convicted of fraud.
Australopithecus AfarensisafarensisOntogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings
Haekel’s EmbryosThe theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)
Let me go find a piece of wood in the dirt and claim Noah's ark was real and lets see how fast you respond that I am insane.
As far as your Moby whale theory goes.....
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.aspIt is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”[17 ] What they mean is that these fossils show a progressive development within Archaeoceti of certain features found in the later, fully marine forms such as Basilosaurus. (The specific features relate mainly to the middle ear and the appendicular skeleton.) This progression of features is believed to correspond to changes that were occurring in the actual basilosaurid lineage.
Then you should have no problem collecting your money.
Interesting thread.
Strong support for my point.It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants.
There have been more than a few cases of macroevolution just in the last 50 years. Particularly in plantlife if I remember correctly. Obviously microevolution is alive and well working right under our own noses. We don't need fossils for that we have live working models and case studies.
And the sad part about all this bull the mans drawings are still in the children's text books.
Old and out of date text that's rarely being used. The fact that you people continually bring this up shows how desperate you really are. Show me a current text book from any one of the schools in SA. You won't find the above. Maybe Hickville in the deep deep woods of Necktown.And the sad part about all this bull the mans drawings are still in the children's text books.
take it for what its worth, since you cite no sources yuorself:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th...acro_evolution
Answer
Like I was just saying ... same evidence, different interpretations.Although many examples are produced, when examined closely, they often could be interpreted differently under another paradigm. Some of the evolutionary arguments for vestigial organs and embryonic recapitulation have turned out to be either fallacious or fraudulent (in the case of the latter).
Just ...Answer
You believe in micro evolution do you not? If so then you must accept macro evolution as it is micro evolution on a grander scale
An unnamed source considers you wrong, and like previously mentioned, your 'evidence' could be quite the contrary when viewed from a different perspective.Answer
The evidence does not support it... case in point: antibacterial soap... the bacteria are microevolving, but the whole time, they remain bacteria. The DNA information is so specific, (according to Richard Dawkins, equal to 30 sets of the Encyclopedia Brittanica) and ordered in such a way, it has never been observed or proven to occur, in any single celled creature or multi-celled creature.
I'm not arguing my point - I'm just saying the interpretation is everything.
I think some of you are from Uranus.
Particularly Haeckel's. You won't find his anywhere in modern day text books. What a joke to even post it.
I'm not up for digging around. Do you believe in micro evolution?
There is no believing in 'microevolution' (I call it adaptation, because that's what it is IMO, not initial stages of miniature stage macroevolution). It is a fact that animals must adapt to their surroundings to survive, and natural selection and survival of the fittest is completely within those boundaries genetically speaking. The difference between the two is that I'm fully aware one species of bird can quickly move away from previous incarnations quickly, but not completely. Evolution delves into fantasy by stating a bird would ever change into anything else other than a different type of bird.
No one I know of is disputing micro evolution is here. Everyone knows you can put
a tiger in a room with a lion and come up with a Liger.
It's when you and your Darwin worshiping pals slip in macro evolution under the kids noses and past the text books that is a problem it has not been proven you can't get a dog from a cu ber or a monkey from a rock like Evolution claims took place Billions of years ago.
What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue.
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?
Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?
Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.
A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.
In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference en led "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.
Thanks for the laugh
Where is that? Where was the actual text printed and where was it distributed to? Like I said I'm sure there are some backwoods places that have simply rerun text without updating it but for the large and I mean large part you don't find that stuff in modern day text.
Not to nitpick it but if that number is accurate its still almost 12 years old.
I will readily agree with mouse on this one - the amount of bull , outright lies, that have been fed the youth of the secular nation up until these past few years is well do ented. Many exaggerations and outright deceit have been perpetrated by the scientific community regarding evolution.
You don't, evolution within a species is Micro show me a plant turning into a bird then you can call it Macro
Fossils are your worst enemy if your going to try and win a debate. They have been proven wrong and many different species have later been found to be alive today.Obviously microevolution is alive and well working right under our own noses. We don't need fossils for that we have live working models and case studies.
But the fossil card is there is you want to use it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
