Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[johnhanks]

There has never been a "single" intermediate fossil found. Ever.

Well, I'm sure you know better than the palaeontologists; I await with interest your closely reasoned arguments demonstrating that any one of these that you choose is not, in fact, transitional. If you don't like those, feel free to explain why Tiktaalik is not transitional. Or if you'd rather keep it closer to home, by all means deploy your biological expertise in demonstrating that early hominids are not transitional.

 

[Dware]

I have yet to a "transitional fossil" please show me one.

In fact there should be MORE trans fossills than any other fossils right?

Unless Evolution isnt true of course...

 

[Dware]

Well, I'm sure you know better than the palaeontologists; I await with interest your closely reasoned arguments demonstrating that any one of these that you choose is not, in fact, transitional. If you don't like those, feel free to explain why Tiktaalik is not transitional. Or if you'd rather keep it closer to home, by all means deploy your biological expertise in demonstrating that early hominids are not transitional.

What you call "early hominids" are merely ape's or humans. There is NO transition between ANY species ever recorded in ANY fossils, ever, period.

 

[Smoke]

Fossilisation being a rare event, fossils don't tend to come in billions; but as a proportion of the fossils that exist, intermediate forms are well represented.

Strictly speaking, all fossils are intermediate forms.

 

[Dware]

Even Darwin himself said at the end of his life “ When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.

Most of the atheist scientists nowdays have moved on to whats called "spontaneous evolution" because they know the fossil record doesnt show any trans fossils. Its a HUGE problem for evolution theorists

 

[McBell]

So where's all these intermediate fossils at, should be billions around.

Ya well they are NOT, sorry bud.

There has never been a "single" intermediate fossil found. Ever.

I have yet to a "transitional fossil" please show me one.

In fact there should be MORE trans fossills than any other fossils right?

Unless Evolution isnt true of course...

What you call "early hominids" are merely ape's or humans. There is NO transition between ANY species ever recorded in ANY fossils, ever, period.

 

[Dware]

Truth is you Evolution Theorist's should not have to work this hard to find "trans fossils" Common sense tells you if A "magically morphed" into B over 10 million years, uh, wheres the 10 million years worth of fossils? Its common for people like you to call people who call out your lies trolls, very common.

 

[McBell]

Truth is you Evolution Theorist's should not have to work this hard to find "trans fossils" Common sense tells you if A "magically morphed" into B over 10 million years, uh, wheres the 10 million years worth of fossils? Its common for people like you to call people who call out your lies trolls, very common.

 

[johnhanks]

I have yet to a "transitional fossil" please show me one.

Disappointing. I invite your closely reasoned arguments explaining why the many fossils I linked you to are not in fact transitional, and all I get is this.

I think I'll go with Mestemia's advice.

 

[darkendless]

People who can't find transitional fossils, go to a ****** meusem and stop whining because they can't see any evidence for evolution.

 

[Dware]

Disappointing. I invite your closely reasoned arguments explaining why the many fossils I linked you to are not in fact transitional, and all I get is this.

I think I'll go with Mestemia's advice.

Of course you will, i have seen this response from Evolution "theorists" hundreds of times. Everytime you ask them to explain the HUGE fossil problem they act like children and resort to name calling, this is nothing new to me. If evolution is true there should be BILLIONS of trans fossils not a mere handful of dubious exampless

 

[McBell]

Of course you will, i have seen this response from Evolution "theorists" hundreds of times. Everytime you ask them to explain the HUGE fossil problem they act like children and resort to name calling, this is nothing new to me. If evolution is true there should be BILLIONS of trans fossils not a mere handful of dubious exampless

Problem is that this line of bull **** has been successfully refuted so many times that it is not even worth the effort to refute yet again.

We get a stream of freshly out of creationism school fanatics every few months.
I mean really, one of you should go back and tell them that they need some new material.

Unless of course you think that you have won because no one really wants to take the time to have you ignore their attempt to educate you.

You gotta love the way creationists celebrate the hell out of empty victories.

 

[Dware]

Is that conceded defeat sir? sure sounds like it.

Im used to dealing with athesist fanatics like you.

 

[McBell]

Is that conceded defeat sir? sure sounds like it.

Im used to dealing with athesist fanatics like you.

thank you for proving my point.

Welcome to the ignore-ance list

 

[Dware]

thank you for proving my point.

Welcome to the ignore-ance list

Really? is that the best you have for me?

I thought you were brilliant..

Im still waiting on an answer to the fossil's. Let me know when and your other lackey's find an answer...

 

[Gunfingers]

Really? is that the best you have for me?

I thought you were brilliant..

Im still waiting on an answer to the fossil's. Let me know when and your other lackey's find an answer...

Alright, man, i'm gonna give this one more try.

Evolutionary theory does not predict chimeras or half-formed organisms or structures. Were such a thing discovered you could go ahead and call evolutionary theory defeated.

See, the way evolution works is like this. Look at an old picture of your grandparents. They probably look similar, but not identical, to your parents. Now take a look at an old picture of your parents. They probably look similar but not identical to you. Now you, you look similar to your parents, and slightly less similar to your grandparents. Your parents were the transitional form between you and your grandparents. Literally, that is what transitional form means in evolutionary biology. Extremely slight modifications that add up over many generations.

In addition, there are organisms demonstrate a half-way stage between two major developments. Above was a link to the tiktaalik. Look at the picture. It's a fish, right? But look at its fore-fins. It walks on them. It is a fish that walks, and a clear example of the transition from aquatic chordates to land chordates.

 

[gnostic]

Evolutionary theory does not predict chimeras or half-formed organisms or structures. Were such a thing discovered you could go ahead and call evolutionary theory defeated.

See, the way evolution works is like this. Look at an old picture of your grandparents. They probably look similar, but not identical, to your parents. Now take a look at an old picture of your parents. They probably look similar but not identical to you. Now you, you look similar to your parents, and slightly less similar to your grandparents. Your parents were the transitional form between you and your grandparents. Literally, that is what transitional form means in evolutionary biology. Extremely slight modifications that add up over many generations.

In addition, there are organisms demonstrate a half-way stage between two major developments. Above was a link to the tiktaalik. Look at the picture. It's a fish, right? But look at its fore-fins. It walks on them. It is a fish that walks, and a clear example of the transition from aquatic chordates to land chordates.

That was a very good example/explanation, gunfingers. Too bad, it would be wasted on them. Because I'd doubt (very much) that dware or other creationists will understand it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Even Darwin himself said at the end of his life “ When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.

Ah, quote mining. How pathetic.
Lets look at the whole text shall we...

"The objection . . . of certain forms remaining unaltered through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? ... n judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should change much slower and much less, and some few should have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very different.
P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments."
May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

Unfortunately for your little quote mining fiasco, Darwin was justified by the predicted DNA link found many years after his death.

(As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing, interestingly enough, the aspects of the fossil record that eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria)

 

[tumbleweed41]

Of course you will, i have seen this response from Evolution "theorists" hundreds of times. Everytime you ask them to explain the HUGE fossil problem they act like children and resort to name calling, this is nothing new to me. If evolution is true there should be BILLIONS of trans fossils not a mere handful of dubious exampless

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/93692-facts-relating-evolution-3.html

 

[Gabethewiking]

Dware, any fossil you find as well as any living species today is a intermediate.

The usage of the word(s) is generally in media because of either ignorance or willingly want to make people less aware of the knowledge about Evolution.

We also have people who use it to explain Evolution and when saying "a missing link" they simple refer to a species that LOOKS like a intermediate as the people claiming they "do not exist" are very into the physical LOOKS of the animal and not the genetics.

We are an intermediate for future Homos and any other animals is an intermediate in the same way, ANY animal you find is intermediate to something, some have LARGE physical differences whiles others have less, you simple show your ignorance of what intermediate is. Perhaps you could explain to us what you think it is?