i totally have lost all signs of evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right now it just makes me laugh when I see artist's depictions of what they imagine were the faces of previous types of humans. My conclusion about the theory is from the fact that the proof (evidence) taken is basically that of fossils and making it appear they fit into the theory because they have similar looking parts, etc.

Hint number 3 that you have no clue what you are talking about.

"similar looking parts" is not the factor of paleontology and the fossil record. Try comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies of those anatomical structures, geographic distribution of species, the geological layers the fossils are found in,... and all those data points combined into a multi-layered dataset which converges on a single answer: evolution.

And that's just the fossil record, which isn't even that great as evidence since fossils are rather rare.

Then there's also the genetic record and analysis of extant species, which are modeled in a dataset in much the same way - only with a LOT more data - and where those multi-layered datasets converge on the exact same answer as the fossil record does.



Every post of yours just shows how limited your knowledge of evolutionary biology really is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you consider as a missing link?

Probably something like this:

 

[McBell]

What I find interesting, helpful, and informative is that you have no real answers. Have a nice night.

And yet again you run from the point tail tucked thinking you some how won.

You truly have mastered Pigeon Chess.

 

[McBell]

So don't answer my question about male and female when they came about. That's good. Because evidently you cannot inform, only insult. And that's the way it should be with you. (Have a good evening.)

You have already demonstrated, repeatedly ad nauseum, that you can not be "informed" of anything concerning evolution.

 

[McBell]

Hmm, still no discovery in the missing link area. (Thanks.)

Hmmm.
Still avoiding the point tail tucked.

 

[night912]

Probably something like this:

View attachment 36261

No, I think they would just classify that as being part of the crockoduck kind. You have to remember that animal has fully formed eyes, and not half formed eyes. Also, it has fully developed wings, and not just half legged wings. Even if all of them, the crockoduck, birddog, bullfrog, and sheepdog, were found, they will still dismiss them.

I guess I shouldn't be too hard on Ray, he was correct about the part that the modern day banana as being created, although crediting it to the wrong creator, but still created none the less.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So don't answer my question about male and female when they came about. That's good. Because evidently you cannot inform, only insult. And that's the way it should be with you. (Have a good evening.)

I'm sorry but your question is a weird one. You want me to pinpoint and show you the very first female and male organisms that ever existed? This isn't a Bible story we're talking about here. I'm still wondering why you haven't gone off on your own to learn a little bit about the scientific theory you're arguing against. Which brings us back to the question I keep asking you ... If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

 

[Audie]

I am not satisfied with an idea of the theory of evolution
Because no old book proves that there were creatures evolved
Not even in the stories of ancestors that there is a being that evolved from an object
Besides, there are no traces of failed attempts to create
All I watch is the continuous extinction of creatures

I am the heavens photographer who draws on the water board (painting), and every day I was draw a creatures in it and then i can breath on some things, and it becomes a separate object to this earth
And every day I draw in the heavens on this painting and over the years I gathered many creatures
Do you know who I am? ( He is God)
Speech refers to God, just I want to clarify the idea of creation

Painters draw daily many designs that may be different or may be close to each other
It is easier than evolution, years, and that God is a slow and unreasonable creator

You did not lose anything you never had.

 

[Audie]

I'm sorry but your question is a weird one. You want me to pinpoint and show you the very first female and male organisms that ever existed? This isn't a Bible story we're talking about here. I'm still wondering why you haven't gone off on your own to learn a little bit about the scientific theory you're arguing against. Which brings us back to the question I keep asking you ... If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

Nobody who'd paid any attention in even a high school biology class
would think "how did male / female..." was some sort of killer gotcha.

Our friend is operating on grade school level. May as well be
laughing at calculus coz its all like funny squiggles, when
common sense tells you math is only about numbers.

Dont expect an answer to the "how did you come to conclusions"
question, though a thoughtful sort of response would be a
wonderful thing to see, worth more than all the pages leading up to it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sorry but your question is a weird one. You want me to pinpoint and show you the very first female and male organisms that ever existed? This isn't a Bible story we're talking about here. I'm still wondering why you haven't gone off on your own to learn a little bit about the scientific theory you're arguing against. Which brings us back to the question I keep asking you ... If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

I have been learning about the theory and scientific evidence you're talking about, so thank you for that. Yes, I am asking you, since the theory of evolution is there -- what are/were the first male and female animals, and what did they evolve from? (Any idea?) I mean it can't be that hard to give a simple answer, can it? OK, I give up. Maybe it is that hard. So I hope you can at least give the conjectural answer given by scientists as to what they think/believe is the first male and female animals, and then, of course, the question is: coming from -- where?
I'm not the only one coming to conclusions about the lack of evidence verifying the theory of evolution by natural selection, I have come to realize. There are others.

But these others are far better conversant with the topic than I am. But no matter -- I see no verifiable proof except for say-so or conjecture to verify the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmmm.
Still avoiding the point tail tucked.

You're funny. Still no verifiable evidence. Well, who knows? And imagine it's just not there -- now, as Einstein implied in his discussion of scientific truth. Or maybe -- they just haven't uncovered the fossils yet. (Have a nice night.)

 

[YoursTrue]

You have already demonstrated, repeatedly ad nauseum, that you can not be "informed" of anything concerning evolution.

OK, thanks for your opinion, and again -- have a nice night. And thank you for the conversation, if I can call it that. Have a good night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry but your question is a weird one. You want me to pinpoint and show you the very first female and male organisms that ever existed? This isn't a Bible story we're talking about here. I'm still wondering why you haven't gone off on your own to learn a little bit about the scientific theory you're arguing against. Which brings us back to the question I keep asking you ... If you're not knowledgable about it, how did you manage to come to any conclusions about it?

it's a gotcha. Can't name them, then evolution is false. An ecologist cannot name the first organisms that interacted with each other and the environment, but it has nothing to with the validity of ecology or ecological theory. He probably thinks it does. Logic is not a strength for our friend.

 

[McBell]

You're funny. Still no verifiable evidence. Well, who knows? And imagine it's just not there -- now, as Einstein implied in his discussion of scientific truth. Or maybe -- they just haven't uncovered the fossils yet. (Have a nice night.)

Repeating your dodge only further reveals just how dishonest you are.

 

[McBell]

OK, thanks for your opinion, and again -- have a nice night. And thank you for the conversation, if I can call it that. Have a good night.

You have certainly mastered the tail tucked retreat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, thanks for your opinion, and again -- have a nice night. And thank you for the conversation, if I can call it that. Have a good night.

He is correct. No matter what evidence and explanation is provided to you, you just repeat "No evidence. Evolution doesn't happen". Until the next time where you rinse and repeat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have been learning about the theory and scientific evidence you're talking about, so thank you for that. Yes, I am asking you, since the theory of evolution is there -- what are/were the first male and female animals, and what did they evolve from? (Any idea?) I mean it can't be that hard to give a simple answer, can it? OK, I give up. Maybe it is that hard. So I hope you can at least give the conjectural answer given by scientists as to what they think/believe is the first male and female animals, and then, of course, the question is: coming from -- where?
I'm not the only one coming to conclusions about the lack of evidence verifying the theory of evolution by natural selection, I have come to realize. There are others.

But these others are far better conversant with the topic than I am. But no matter -- I see no verifiable proof except for say-so or conjecture to verify the theory of evolution by natural selection.

John and Marsha were the first male and female animals.

Yes, yes. We see you deny the evidence every time you post now. That seems like all you post now. You have denial on heavy rotation. Number one with a bullet. Top of your chart. Yo! Denial rocks!

 

[McBell]

He is correct. No matter what evidence and explanation is provided to you, you just repeat "No evidence. Evolution doesn't happen". Until the next time where you rinse and repeat.

It is almost as if he is fishing to have his *** handed to him in order to make himself feel better.
Like a drug addict, only his "drug" is being shown he is wrong.

 

[McBell]

I have been learning about the theory and scientific evidence you're talking about,

How long do you think before your posts start showing it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is almost as if he is fishing to have his *** handed to him in order to make himself feel better.
Like a drug addict, only his "drug" is being shown he is wrong.

i have known a few creationists with a martyr complex. Arguments can get really weird since the more one shows them to be wrong the holier they think that they are.