Evolution...?

[RandomGuy]

There is no end to this....


So – the big questions are: does variety show that life-forms are changing from one kind into another? Or does variety have a limit?

There are only two ways to find out!

• First, do we see Evolution happening today or do we see that life-forms have limits in their variety?
• Second, if Evolution is true, the fossil record of the past should show millions of examples of transitional fossils.

On the other hand, if Evolution is not true, the fossil record should show that life-forms in the past had limits to their variety also.

This means a REAL transitional form would not be a “variety”. Instead, these life-forms should show a major structure that is clearly changing.

In other words – if rodents became bats we should see some strange rodent with super long fingers. Why? Because bats have fingers longer than their bodies that they use as wings.

The truth is the only possible transitional fossils Evolutionists bring up are not convincing – even to other Evolutionists. There are some interesting mosaic creatures like the platypus and the walrus in the world. But the platypus and the walrus are complete within their own kind. They are not transitional forms. If Creation is what really happened in the past, this is what we would expect to find in the fossil record. (3)

When people think of mammals, bats are probably not the first animals to come to mind, yet they account for roughly a fifth of current mammal species. They simply have so many specialized features—large ears and echolocation, radically extended forelimb bones, skin flaps connecting their limbs—that they seem quite removed from what we view as a typical mammal. A new fossil find from Wyoming, described in this week's edition of Nature, sheds light on the origin of many of these features.

As you can see at right, the fossil is astonishingly well preserved. It comes from deposits that date to about 52.5 million years ago, a time when many mammalian groups were expanding, possibly in response to the environmental changes associated with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The species has been named Onychonycteris finneyi, meaning "clawed bat" and honoring its discoverer, Bonnie Finney.

The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/...ion-to-flight/

Asked for, and given.

The creationist response: move the goal posts. "but you can't find...."

Every single time a predicted transitional form is found that fills in yet another gap, this is what happens.

Dig into it.

Transitional forms predicted by evolution have been, and continue to be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/? le=List...tional_fossils

Modern taxonomy and phylogeny, fully support evolution, and provide clues and predictions of all manner of transitional forms.

One of the strongest ways in which the evidence for evolution becomes overwhelming is when you find a theory's predictions being borne out in multiple lines of evidence.

If one wants to read up on this aspect of how the study of genetics supports the predictions of evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Not only does it tell you why something is true, it shows you how to determine for yourself, independently of what any scientist tells you.

[RandomGuy]

Here I will pause, and note a common logical flaw in many peoples reasoning;

Moving the goalposts.

Logical fallacy[edit]

Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Or if you prefer, a better presented form of this flawed argument here:

M

OVING THE GOALPOSTS
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example #1:

Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless, since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.

Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.

The common application of this flawed line of reasoning is to insist on the impossible proof that every single transitional form be presented before evolution is "proved".

This is neither feasible, nor required to accept something as true.

Take this series of numbers for example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (X), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ...

We can deduce what "X" is, even if we don't know with an absolute certainty what comes after 14 in the series, simply by forming a hypothesis that the rule governing the set is "add one to the number on the left".

[spurraider21]

AD doesn't get into who or why that insinuates a designer/creator we only acknowledge there is design while exposing lies in texts books.

if there is design, there is a designer. otherwise... it's not really design.

[Avante]

Look at these dummies, wow!

Only an idiot would believe we came from a fish. How dumb can ya get?

[mouse]

So why did you even try as much as you did to conclude everything was intelligently designed only to stop there?

Again, it's just a cop out. You can stop talking about this now. You say you are done, after all.

Psssst! When I see lies and bull being posted as facts I chime in.

[ChumpDumper]

Psssst! When I see lies and bull being posted as facts I chime in.

But there is no proof to make what you say true.

[mouse]

Evolutionists won't acknowledge DNA even though it's right there smacking them in the face

[Avante]

How did DNA just happen without a Designer?

[ChumpDumper]

How did DNA just happen without a Designer?

How did it happen with a designer?

[boutons_deux]

How did it happen with a designer?

come on, chump, stop with unfair questions.

[RandomGuy]

Look at these dummies, wow!

Only an idiot would believe we came from a fish. How dumb can ya get?

Translation:

Not really an argument. Just a variation on a theme.

Same debunked argument from incredulity you have been harping on.

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Avante here actually does both forms:

[That we are the result of random natural processes] simply can't happen by chance, [therefore the argument that we are the result of random natural processes is false]

P= We are the result of random natural processes

[I cannot imagine how anything could happen without a designer "we... must have a Designer"], [so therefore, we have a Designer]

P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Blake]

How did DNA just happen without a Designer?

How did the designer just happen without a designer?

[Avante]

Translation:



Not really an argument. Just a variation on a theme.

Same debunked argument from incredulity you have been harping on.



Avante here actually does both forms:


P= We are the result of random natural processes


P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Hey stupid, if you wanna think we all evolved from a fish you're an idiot, ok? And nothing you can say will change that, got it?

[Blake]

Hey stupid, if you wanna think we all evolved from a fish you're an idiot, ok? And nothing you can say will change that, got it?

There's evidence of evolution. There's no evidence of intelligent design.

Intelligent design was even shot down in court when proponents tried to get it into science books.

You're incredibly ing re ed. No amount of YouTube distractions will change that.

[RandomGuy]

Hey stupid, if you wanna think we all evolved from a fish you're an idiot, ok? And nothing you can say will change that, got it?

Meh. Let me know when you get bored of trolling.

Alternately:
If you are stupid enough to ignore the evidence that we all evolved from fish, you are provably an idiot. Until you stop being a lazy , that will not change.

It boggles my mind when I see lazy s like yourself that have to perform some pretty astonishing feats of mental gymnastics to keep believing things despite the mountains of evidence humans have discovered about our world and universe.

Why are you so lazy?

[Avante]

Meh. Let me know when you get bored of trolling.

Alternately:
If you are stupid enough to ignore the evidence that we all evolved from fish, you are provably an idiot. Until you stop being a lazy , that will not change.

It boggles my mind when I see lazy s like yourself that have to perform some pretty astonishing feats of mental gymnastics to keep believing things despite the mountains of evidence humans have discovered about our world and universe.

Why are you so lazy?

Stupid, who hasn't seen/read all that stupidity? If you can't see how full of bull that is I can't help ya. Only total morons buy into that bull , and you're too stupid to not see that.

[Blake]

Avante's designer really ed up.

6'2 285lbs of fat and stupid.

[Avante]

Avante's designer really ed up.

6'2 285lbs of fat and stupid.

Who out there follows people around just to bug them? Look at this freak, he acts like he's 13 years old. Real easy to see why he gets constantly on, not a brain in his head, none!

Now watch this, here the little re comes back again, is this sad to watch or what?

I gurantee he'll be back.

[Blake]

Watch this, after I call Avante fat, he'll come back again.

Avante is fat.

Now watch....

[Avante]

BINGO~~~~~~~~~~~

That was just too easy, hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Here he comes again, I GURANTEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine a life going around seeing who you can bug on the internet, that's all this sucker does. How sad is this?

I own this boy, watch!

[RandomGuy]

Stupid, who hasn't seen/read all that stupidity? If you can't see how full of bull that is I can't help ya. Only total morons buy into that bull , and you're too stupid to not see that.

You haven't seen/read it, and that is pretty obvious. You can't state more than the most childish understanding of the theory, and you rely on liars to tell you what to think about it, rather than make the effort of thinking for yourself.

I mean, I guess I can't blame you for being lazy. It is human nature. It takes effort to read, and understand.

Real critical thinking is hard. Evaluating ones inherent assumptions is hard. Cognitive bias is a to overcome, but can be done.

That is one of the things that the research of Donning-Kruger showed. People who are really incompetent at something, just don't recognize how incompetent they are, until they have been shown what competence looks like, and even then they like to trick themselves into thinking they are still "above average" somehow. But with some effort, they can acquire the skills needed to improve.

I can, and have, run circles around the work of the liars and idiots you post here, as well as your own mantra "fish... ahahahah".

Yet you persist.

Again, I wonder why? Does it make you happy to wallow in ignorance? Why be lazy, Avante?

[Blake]

BINGO~~~~~~~~~~~

That was just too easy, hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Here he comes again, I GURANTEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine a life going around seeing who you can bug on the internet, that's all this sucker does. How sad is this?

I own this boy, watch!

Too easy.

Here comes poorly designed fat man again.

Watch....

[Avante]

You haven't seen/read it, and that is pretty obvious. You can't state more than the most childish understanding of the theory, and you rely on liars to tell you what to think about it, rather than make the effort of thinking for yourself.

I mean, I guess I can't blame you for being lazy. It is human nature. It takes effort to read, and understand.

Real critical thinking is hard. Evaluating ones inherent assumptions is hard. Cognitive bias is a to overcome, but can be done.

That is one of the things that the research of Donning-Kruger showed. People who are really incompetent at something, just don't recognize how incompetent they are, until they have been shown what competence looks like, and even then they like to trick themselves into thinking they are still "above average" somehow. But with some effort, they can acquire the skills needed to improve.

I can, and have, run circles around the work of the liars and idiots you post here, as well as your own mantra "fish... ahahahah".

Yet you persist.

Again, I wonder why? Does it make you happy to wallow in ignorance? Why be lazy, Avante?

Anyone who spends all day trying to peddle ...I was once a fish....to total strangers on the internet is one dumb . That's how I see you.....one dumb .

There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince me we came from fish, that will not happen, what about that don't you get?


Now watch this dummy totally ignore that, then he wonders why I pay no attention to all his bull .

[Avante]

Too easy.

Here comes poorly designed fat man again.

Watch....

ZOOOOMMMS right his pin head doesn't it, too stupid to realize he's in my thread doing exactly what I know he will, poor little idiot.

[Blake]

ZOOOOMMMS right his pin head doesn't it, too stupid to realize he's in my thread doing exactly what I know he will, poor little idiot.

Like shooting unevolved fish in a barrel

Avante is fat.

Wait for it....