Is Mankind A Fluke?

[Thief]

Doesn't follow. All 'occurrences' are relatively quick, from this perspective.

A notion with neither reason to consider it an option nor any supporting evidence.

ok.....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

but we seem sure of timelines
and some species have been around for soooooooooooooo long

and we humans.....thinking as we do
have been around since....yesterday

 

[Colt]

There are no major transitional fossils for the simple fact that they never existed. Evolution is characterized by mutations followed by long periods of slight adaptive modifications in response to environment.

Perfection hunger is the fingerprint of intelligent design.

 

[ratiocinator]

There are no major transitional fossils...

False: Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

Also
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
CC200: Transitional fossils

 

[Colt]

False: Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

Also
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
CC200: Transitional fossils

.....These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2]

 

[ratiocinator]

.....These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2]

You don't seem to understand what you're reading.

 

[Thief]

I suspect.....the tweaking of a few molecules
you get something greatly different

pull a rib from a specimen.....tweak the chemistry as you bring it to full stature
and you get something really different

then let it reproduce

 

[capumetu]

If a tornado went crashing through a junkyard and left behind a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready to go, would that be a fluke?

View attachment 46308
pexels.com

Sure would, but could give some credence to the evolutionists

 

[Valjean]

There are no major transitional fossils for the simple fact that they never existed. Evolution is characterized by mutations followed by long periods of slight adaptive modifications in response to environment.

Mutations? You think it's mutation producing the variation?

Perfection hunger is the fingerprint of intelligent design.

This you'll have to explain. I'm not following.

.....These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation.

Yes, there's mostly a continuum of variation. That's evolution. The fact that taxonomic labels are assigned by humans doesn't affect the reality of change. The names are just conveniences.

Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.

What 'point of divergence'? Divergence from what? Does divergence have a point? -- I thought everything was on a continuum.

Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups,

What are they, then, and where did the more recent groups come from?

Consider: There's a language we call Latin. There's another we call French. Linguists seem to think Latin is a direct ancestor of French, but where is the "point of divergence," and why do they think the various, archaic, Old French transitional "fossils" are ancestors of the current French?

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Colt]

Mutations? You think it's mutation producing the variation?
This you'll have to explain. I'm not following.
Yes, there's mostly a continuum of variation. That's evolution. The fact that taxonomic labels are assigned by humans doesn't affect the reality of change. The names are just conveniences.
What 'point of divergence'? Divergence from what? Does divergence have a point? -- I thought everything was on a continuum.
What are they, then, and where did the more recent groups come from?

Consider: There's a language we call Latin. There's another we call French. Linguists seem to think Latin is a direct ancestor of French, but where is the "point of divergence," and why do they think the various, archaic, Old French transitional "fossils" are ancestors of the current French?

I was simply quoting the wiki that points out that humans have created the appearance of transitional fossils.

Perfection hunger is in the forward march of evolution from the most primitive life forms up to conscious humans who discus it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I was simply quoting the wiki that points out that humans have created the appearance of transitional fossils.

Which just shows that you didn't understand the article. Humans have made classifications based of the fossils we had at the time they were made. The fossil record is patchy because fossilisation is a very rare event, so the classifications we have are pretty arbitrary. If we had a complete fossil record, we'd see a continuum, so classification would be next to impossible. Gaps (or transitions) have been filled in many, many times as the articles I gave you point out. Hence your statement that "There are no major transitional fossils..." was simply false.

Not that we even need fossils to provide comprehensive evidence for evolution, of course, genetics alone can do that.

Perfection hunger is in the forward march of evolution from the most primitive life forms up to conscious humans who discus it.

No such thing. Complexity increases and decreases. Of course, since life necessarily started out quite simple, there will be more complex examples later on but there is no "forward march" or direction. It's also rather silly yo call it "perfection hunger" - complex forms are no more perfect that simple ones.

 

[night912]

If a tornado went crashing through a junkyard and left behind a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready to go, would that be a fluke?

View attachment 46308
pexels.com

No it wouldn't. The simple explanation? There was a Boeing 747 fully fueled and almost ready to go sitting in the junkyard. The reason why it wasn't ready to go is because angle of the flaps were a little off. When the tornado came, it had just the right amount of force to knock the flaps into place. So because of the tornado coming through, it was possible for a fully fueled Boeing 747 to be ready to go. If there was no tornado, the plane would still not be ready to go. It just needed the right environment.

Sometimes, all it takes is a less complex explanation to get to the truth.

BTW,
Nobody is responsible for your lack of imagination but you. Just because you don't know and/or can't explain the Boeing 747, doesn't mean that you can simply say, "A fluke did it." If you have that kind of attitude, you would not be able to provide an answer to hard questions, let alone trick questions.