This is how it works in evolutionary biology, First a single hypothesis is put alone on the table, Second all interpretations of observations have to be made exclusively in light of the only hypothesis and hence used to justify all observations as evidence, Third the very evidence are used to...
This kind of statements “all is well, we have tons of evidence, we follow the science you don’t ” are the typical evolutionists ignorant statements. It’s not an argument. Be specific and name your evidence. Recent finds with respect to the fossil records and adaptation mechanisms are against the...
It’s not hypothetical, it’s confirmed by paleontologist. See #352.
Incompleteness is not the word paleontologist use. The correct description of the fossil record is “no support for gradual change”.
Stephen Jay Gould said “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR...
I gave you a specific answer that only an ignorant of evolutionary biology would disagree with (and you disagreed). Get yourself familiar with what you advocate first before you talk.
Don’t hide behind fallacious “Ad hominem” tactic, try to address the specifics of an argument and state the...
Correct, simply an intermediate along the evolutionary line of development from a common ancestor to present species.
I don’t. You deny that intermediates are absent in the fossil record as confirmed by paleontologists. Again see#352.
Few fossils are interpreted as evidence but the...
If it’s not in the ancestral line, then it’s not an intermediate. Without intermediates simply there is no evolution.
The ToE predicts millions of intermediates (Transitional forms). If real world observations contradict the predictions of the theory, the theory is false.
This is actually...
What I said is specific and clear. I said, “The fossil record doesn’t support the predictions of the ToE.” We shouldn’t argue about this. It’s neither a claim nor an argument. It’s an established fact as confirmed by paleontologist. Why can’t you guys wrap your head around it? See#352
Stephen...
If you want, you may call it “origin of life” but you cannot call it "transitional species”.
Transitional species has to be an intermediate along the evolutionary line of development from a common ancestor to present species.
You may think its a satisfactory explanation to claim that all live...
You’re right, I know most readers would do the same but It's up to them.
For me, most posts include multiple false points that deserve individual detailed refutation, we cannot generalize but again, you’re right.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Invasive species have nothing to do with speciation.
Per the ToE, new species don’t just pop out to from another. The change is gradual. A new allele /variant can only emerge within an existing niche and will continue to be the same species. (The new allele doesn’t...
No its not, it's an extinct primate considered as a relative (unknown relationship) not a transitional form leading to H. sapiens. See #327
Enlighten us!
Get real and stop the nonsense.
Stop the nonsense and get to the specifics of the argument.
fallacious nonsense, go ahead, enlighten us!
I appreciate your input but if the matter is serious, it requires elaboration. how else would you refute a false view? there is no other way around it. you break it down, explain why each point is false and support your argument with references as needed.
Same meaningless nonsense, of the kind “ I’m right, you’re wrong, I know but you don’t” this is ridiculous, state your reasons and references not simply because you say so or wish to be?
You claim that my referenced articles in # 397 are all about 40 years out of date. Go back and read it...
No need!! Nice escape but sorry don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
None was refuted. It's simple enough to say that you don’t agree but unless you state your reasons, it's nothing but some meaningless nonsense. Take care
You’re only making some meaningless statements, its not an argument.
Again, If you want to prove me wrong, go back to #349 point by point and explain the reasons for your disagreement. If you don’t, then just stop the nonsense.
Stop the fallacious nonsense and try to address the specifics of my argument.
I specifically said that the prediction of the ToE of millions of transitional forms was proven false by real world evidence in the fossil record. And I stated the scientific references multiple times. Here it is once...
False, name one.
“Moving the goalposts" is a typical fallacious escape tactic that shows your failure to address the specifics of an argument. Sorry, not interested.
Hiding behind fallacious "Ad hominem" and generalization as a typical escape tactic to avoid addressing the specifics of an argument clearly shows your failure and inability of making a logical argument. Sorry, no one will buy it. If you want to prove me wrong, go back to #349 point by point and...
Between the alleged " Last Common Ancestor, HC-LCA” and H. sapiens (as shown on the alleged human evolutionary family tree). there are no evidence for HC-LCA or for any transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.
As I said, success means that the species remain reproductively successful. Selection acts on present circumstances not a future promise. Mutation is the force for a change not selection (selection is a purifying but not a creative force). If mutation causes a variant A to emerge within a niche...