Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[jonathan180iq]

My naturalism would say that there isn't enough evidence when the layers aren't definitive layers.

You only make that argument because you don't actually bother to research the topic...

Overview - Maps
Feel free to look up the map of your local area, maybe even your own property, and go check it out for yourself. I've done so with a 30 acre piece of land that my family maintains on the backside of our larges local mountain. Sure enough, these layers are obvious and detectable with not even 30 minutes worth of hiking/digging. (Mostly sand and mudstone from the Ordovician layers, unfortunately. Not prime ground for fossil hunting.)

Geological formation - Wikipedia
Lithostratigraphy - Wikipedia
Stratigraphy - Wikipedia
Fault (geology) - Wikipedia
Geologic Time

For example, there are polystrate fossils that go through multiple layers.

Those do, exist. They also have very well understood and demonstrable explanations.

Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia
"The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.[1][3]"

GEOLOGIC EXPLANATIONS
In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.[2][4] Upright fossils typically occur in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time - decades to thousands of years long - characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal-plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea-level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia directly result from rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and from the resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.[5][6] The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[5][7]

Also, Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, does not appear to be of one creature, but more likely more than one creature.

How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?

https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story
Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
AL 288-1 | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Australopithecus afarensis - A. afarensis is a gracile Australopithecine
Australopithecus afarensis - Australian Museum

What about Richard Leakey finding a human skull that was dated hundreds of millions of years before the first Australopithecus afarensis?

Again, nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
http://efossils.org/page/boneviewer/Homo rudolfensis/KNM-ER 1470
https://www.britannica.com/topic/KNM-ER-1470

"What Richard Leakey actually found was an early, primitive skull in a layer of rock that dates a little more recently than 2 million years. The physical characteristics and date of the skull are quite consistent with human evolution.

• The skull in question, KNM-ER 1470, is not that of a normal human. Among other things, the skull capacity (750cc) is far below that of an average modern human and the face is much more robust. Nearly all anthropologists agree that this skull is either a very early member of the homo genus (Homo rudolfensis) or a member of another hominin genus entirely (e.g., Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus).
• The original dating of the rock at over 200 Ma was false due to contamination of the sample with older volcanic rock. Subsequent dating methods converged on a range of dates between about 2.9 and 1.8 Ma, and in the early 80s, the discrepancy was finally resolved at 1.8 Ma."

Creationists sources are full of articles and discussions that are based on misrepresented or purposefully fraudulent information. They're considered bad sources for a reason.

This is addition to Prof. Owen Lovejoy's theories. He is an expert. Why aren't his theories discussed?

Which theories, specifically?

https://www.kent.edu/anthropology/profile/dr-c-owen-lovejoy

Let alone my theory of humans having a whale as a common ancestor.

The inaccuracy of your aforementioned claims notwithstanding...

This is why

 

[jonathan180iq]

C'mon can't take a joke?

Was it really a joke, or were you just backed into a corner and needed an easy out?

Did you ever explain why you do not believe going to Mars due to the belief or thinking that our planet will eventually die?

Yes - in two lengthy responses that you neither read nor responded to.

Another theory I could subscribe to is running out of a natural resource that we need. What if our air becomes too polluted? Or the earth could lose its shielding from ultraviolet rays. Can we survive living inside and underground? If fine tuning is correct, then it would be a conservative play to look for another planet and means of getting there.

Fine tuning is not correct, so...

 

[james bond]

I Can't see how you came to the conclusion we might have evolved from whales

You're a good guy. One of the strange evolutionary ideas is the origin of whales. We have tiktaalik which became a tetrapod based on its fins becoming arms which could walk on land. It's gills became lungs. The strange part is some of these tetrapods went back to the sea to become whales. Where the whale comes in is because it's fins are like that of the tiktaalik. Thus, why not evolve from whales?

Tiktaalik starts here, and this matches the website I learned evolution from -- What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish? . The arguments is based mostly from the bones of the fins as highlighted in this Newsweek infograph*.

* Newsweek, April 17, 2006, "If It Walks Like a Fish ...", page 8 (Ev)).

Here is a close up of the fin.

No one compared it to killer whales because they came later according to evolutionary thinking, but it is like this.

Furthermore, this theory fits the evolutionary timeline much better. The first land creatures or tetrapods came millions of years after the tiktaalik, so a whate would meet that finding much better.

Anyway, the whole story of tiktaalik to tetrapod has been questioned, as well, under evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The evo scientists imagine what a missing link might look like, and then try to find fossils that fit their pre-conceived notion. This can lead to gross errors as it's based on circular reasoning. For example, we have the coelacanth which is today a living fossil. Moreover, there were other claims besides tiktaalik as the so-called missing link from fish to land creature that didn't pan out.

 

[james bond]

Was it really a joke, or were you just backed into a corner and needed an easy out?


Yes - in two lengthy responses that you neither read nor responded to.


Fine tuning is not correct, so...

I'll reply to your last post since it's easy. I'll have to look over the post before this to answer. Also, your two explanations about Mars. My apologies for missing them.

Last point first. Where do you get this statement from? Fine tuning is the best theory to explain life on earth and none found elsewhere. Not even a microbe.

Ha ha. I was watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 Werewolf on Netflix which I never finished. I think it's the second show after Reptilicus. There's also a new MST3000, so I think this was the original series.

Isn't it a lot cooler with the pointed snout and wolf's face? We already fear encountering a wolf one-on-one because of it's powerful jaws that can tear our bodies apart. Much stronger than that of a dog. Then there are the big claws instead of paws and magnified strength of human and wolf combined. I think it runs on all fours instead of being bipedal contrary to evolutionary thinking. It can be bipedal when it's to its advantage. How do we know this creature is myth? We have no fossil evidence and the creature cannot exist beyond one generation. The Bible doesn't say it exists, but it does talk about whether we can eat it or not (if it did exist).

Here is a good report on eating wolf . It follows the Bible, no?

How To Cook A Wolf

 

[Sapiens]

I started to look at things through naturalism to take a break from YEC's view since Alvin Plantinga discusses it even though he may not agree with it. (I think Plantinga came up with "basic belief" which I need to study.)

My naturalism would say that there isn't enough evidence when the layers aren't definitive layers. For example, there are polystrate fossils that go through multiple layers. Also, Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, does not appear to be of one creature, but more likely more than one creature. What about Richard Leakey finding a human skull that was dated hundreds of millions of years before the first Australopithecus afarensis? This is addition to Prof. Owen Lovejoy's theories. He is an expert. Why aren't his theories discussed? Let alone my theory of humans having a whale as a common ancestor.

Plantinga's came up with his "basic belief" which is no more intellectually sophisticated than childishly marinating that evidence is not required. It is a foolish and, in reality, dishonest way of shifting that blame that can be applied to any and every indefensible raving with equal utility. The only reason it enjoys more than passing notice is because it goes to the heart of the theist problem ... they suffer from a complete and utter lack of evidence.

Richard Leaky never found a skull that was dated hundreds of millions of years before the first Australopithecus afarensis. He found a fossil of early man dating to about 2.55 million years. Don Johanson found the 3.9 million-year-old skeleton "Lucy," and Lee Berger has pushed human origins back only slightly further.

 

[Sapiens]

You're a good guy. One of the strange evolutionary ideas is the origin of whales. We have tiktaalik which became a tetrapod based on its fins becoming arms which could walk on land. It's gills became lungs. The strange part is some of these tetrapods went back to the sea to become whales. Where the whale comes in is because it's fins are like that of the tiktaalik. Thus, why not evolve from whales?

Tiktaalik starts here, and this matches the website I learned evolution from -- What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish? . The arguments is based mostly from the bones of the fins as highlighted in this Newsweek infograph*.

* Newsweek, April 17, 2006, "If It Walks Like a Fish ...", page 8 (Ev)).

Here is a close up of the fin.

No one compared it to killer whales because they came later according to evolutionary thinking, but it is like this.

Furthermore, this theory fits the evolutionary timeline much better. The first land creatures or tetrapods came millions of years after the tiktaalik, so a whate would meet that finding much better.

Anyway, the whole story of tiktaalik to tetrapod has been questioned, as well, under evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The evo scientists imagine what a missing link might look like, and then try to find fossils that fit their pre-conceived notion. This can lead to gross errors as it's based on circular reasoning. For example, we have the coelacanth which is today a living fossil. Moreover, there were other claims besides tiktaalik as the so-called missing link from fish to land creature that didn't pan out.

You need to learn about evolution from a reputable source. It is rather a waste of everyone's time to discuss anything with someone who thinks that "gills became lungs" and who lacks even a rudimentary understanding of homologous and analogous structures.

 

[Segev Moran]

You're a good guy.

lol, why?

One of the strange evolutionary ideas is the origin of whales.

Interesting maybe. I wouldn't say strange.

We have tiktaalik which became a tetrapod based on its fins becoming arms which could walk on land. It's gills became lungs. The strange part is some of these tetrapods went back to the sea to become whales. Where the whale comes in is because it's fins are like that of the tiktaalik. Thus, why not evolve from whales?

Why is it so strange?
It is reasonable to think that out of a spread of thousands of species, some few might have found their way back to the ocean.

Whales evolved out of land mammals.
We evolved out of land mammals.

What you are suggesting is that land mammals evolved into sea mammals, who than evolved into land mammals again that finally evolved to a biped creature.

Can you support this process with evidence? (It will probably contradict some of the current fossil findings we have so it should also be able to explain such contradictions)

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

This is a statement from this article : "this organism was a close relative of one our own ancestors"
Tiktaalik is another proof the evolution is long ago a predictable and true theory.

How does that fit into your theory?

Furthermore, this theory fits the evolutionary timeline much better. The first land creatures or tetrapods came millions of years after the tiktaalik, so a whate would meet that finding much better.

Tiktaalik is a common ancestor to both land mammals and sea mammals.

Anyway, the whole story of tiktaalik to tetrapod has been questioned, as well, under evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The evo scientists imagine what a missing link might look like, and then try to find fossils that fit their pre-conceived notion. This can lead to gross errors as it's based on circular reasoning. For example, we have the coelacanth which is today a living fossil. Moreover, there were other claims besides tiktaalik as the so-called missing link from fish to land creature that didn't pan out.

Obviously those people were looking for what the evolution process predicts.
they knew how to look for it not by chance. it was due to predictions made by other scientific knowledge.

 

[james bond]

lol, why?

Interesting maybe. I wouldn't say strange.

Why is it so strange?
It is reasonable to think that out of a spread of thousands of species, some few might have found their way back to the ocean.

Whales evolved out of land mammals.
We evolved out of land mammals.

What you are suggesting is that land mammals evolved into sea mammals, who than evolved into land mammals again that finally evolved to a biped creature.

Can you support this process with evidence? (It will probably contradict some of the current fossil findings we have so it should also be able to explain such contradictions)

This is a statement from this article : "this organism was a close relative of one our own ancestors"
Tiktaalik is another proof the evolution is long ago a predictable and true theory.

How does that fit into your theory?

Tiktaalik is a common ancestor to both land mammals and sea mammals.

Obviously those people were looking for what the evolution process predicts.
they knew how to look for it not by chance. it was due to predictions made by other scientific knowledge.

You got an open mind. I think you question things because of this.

When we are talking about the whales or other creatures from 35-40 millions of years ago, how are we looking at them? When we look at whales, do we apply what we know about them today? We know their massive, powerful, smart, eat a lot of fish and aren't plentiful. We know this from observation and study. We also know that millions of years ago, they were still enormous by their fossils. The Killer Whale is one of the most strongest creatures on earth.

Back millions of years ago, were whales plentiful? It seems to be that way. One of the early things we are taught in elementary school was they were hunted for food, their skin was made into clothing and their blubber was used for illumination, lubrication and turned into other products. They were part of the food chain and in some areas the most prized. Out of all this, what do we get? What I get is they were massive back then and are still massive now. There may have been different species and smaller whales, but generally they are still whales. That's the strange part. We do not see the natural progression of whales based on evidence. Also, their basic description hasn't changed much at all except for the variety of species.

My theory is the whales evolved out of tiktaalik using ToE. That seems more likely than a tetrapod. There may have been land creatures that evolved from the sea, but there isn't enough evidence for it. I don't have enough info about tiktaalik, but the fins of coelacanth are used to swim in multiple directions. They are connected to the backbone like that of land based creatures.

 

[Segev Moran]

You got an open mind. I think you question things because of this.

I Question things because I'm skeptic
I am asking questions because I am curious about understanding something before I dismiss or accept as valid.
But thank you. I think most debaters in this forum are the same.

When we are talking about the whales or other creatures from 35-40 millions of years ago,

You mean ancestors of current whales?

how are we looking at them?

Using fossils.

When we look at whales, do we apply what we know about them today?

Can't understand what you mean.
Do you mean that we estimate how the ancient whales behaved based on what current whales behave?
Of course. But we do take into considerations many factors that will impact their behavior (like size, were fossils found in packs or singles, did they seem to arrive from different environment and the likes).

We know their massive, powerful, smart, eat a lot of fish and aren't plentiful.

Current whales. True.

We know this from observation and study.

We also know that millions of years ago, they were still enormous by their fossils. The Killer Whale is one of the most strongest creatures on earth.
[/QUOTE]
And we also know that they were smaller before they became bigger...

Back millions of years ago, were whales plentiful? It seems to be that way.

Makes sense. I can't say for sure as I lack the information.

One of the early things we are taught in elementary school was they were hunted for food, their skin was made into clothing and their blubber was used for illumination, lubrication and turned into other products.

Ok

They were part of the food chain and in some areas the most prized.

Sadly. yes.

Out of all this, what do we get?

That whales evolved?

What I get is they were massive back then and are still massive now. There may have been different species and smaller whales, but generally they are still whales.

that is not true.
The evolution of whales
There is a a lot of knowledge regarding the evolution of whales. there are of course, many more questions to be answered.
They were not (obviously) always whales.

That's the strange part. We do not see the natural progression of whales based on evidence.
Also, their basic description hasn't changed much at all except for the variety of species.

Same link

My theory is the whales evolved out of tiktaalik using ToE.

If you'll find supporting evidence, viola.

That seems more likely than a tetrapod. There may have been land creatures that evolved from the sea, but there isn't enough evidence for it. I don't have enough info about tiktaalik, but the fins of coelacanth are used to swim in multiple directions. They are connected to the backbone like that of land based creatures.

I Don't know enough about whales evolution to falsify your theory.
I Do however think the fossils we have, suggest otherwise.. that the limbs shrank at fossils that were found from more distant eras.
So in order to present your theory as possible, you must find the reason your theory fits more than the other theory.

I will appropriate an update cheers.

 

[james bond]

That whales evolved?

that is not true.
The evolution of whales
There is a a lot of knowledge regarding the evolution of whales. there are of course, many more questions to be answered.
They were not (obviously) always whales.

Same link

If you'll find supporting evidence, viola.

I Don't know enough about whales evolution to falsify your theory.
I Do however think the fossils we have, suggest otherwise.. that the limbs shrank at fossils that were found from more distant eras.
So in order to present your theory as possible, you must find the reason your theory fits more than the other theory.

I will appropriate an update cheers.

I Question things because I'm skeptic
I am asking questions because I am curious about understanding something before I dismiss or accept as valid.
But thank you. I think most debaters in this forum are the same.

You mean ancestors of current whales?

Using fossils.

Can't understand what you mean.
Do you mean that we estimate how the ancient whales behaved based on what current whales behave?
Of course. But we do take into considerations many factors that will impact their behavior (like size, were fossils found in packs or singles, did they seem to arrive from different environment and the likes).

Current whales. True.

We also know that millions of years ago, they were still enormous by their fossils. The Killer Whale is one of the most strongest creatures on earth.

And we also know that they were smaller before they became bigger...

Makes sense. I can't say for sure as I lack the information.

Ok

Sadly. yes.

That whales evolved?

that is not true.
The evolution of whales
There is a a lot of knowledge regarding the evolution of whales. there are of course, many more questions to be answered.
They were not (obviously) always whales.

Same link

If you'll find supporting evidence, viola.

I Don't know enough about whales evolution to falsify your theory.
I Do however think the fossils we have, suggest otherwise.. that the limbs shrank at fossils that were found from more distant eras.
So in order to present your theory as possible, you must find the reason your theory fits more than the other theory.

I will appropriate an update cheers.

This is where we diverge. Yes, I am familiar with the evolution of whales, but don't think that's how it happened. It's simpler to evolve from a sea creature like tiktaalik. Otherwise, you're trying to find evidence to fit your theories instead of basing your theories on what has been observed. It doesn't show much common sense.

Darwin was a naturalist, so I don't think he'll agree with this theory either. He didn't like humans evolving from apes either as he though apes were of low intelligence. I think he eventually started thinking that early humans were of low intelligence and evolved from there. He doesn't fit because the Neaderthal man was not of low intelligence. It was the superior fighter and gatherer of food. Certainly, he passed on his genes while not all of the Cro-Magnon did. I do accept the theory that they died out due to interbreeding with Cro-Magnon.

 

[james bond]

Where's my new friend Segev? I didn't really want to discuss whales or what the study of this is called -- homology unless you want to.

I just found another way to look at this and that is naturalistic view instead of ToE.

I think it goes like this. If we didn't evolve through common descent, then how did we evolve? What naturalistic process could have happened to cause mutation or mutation event? This thinking is following up on the missing links (assuming we get a somewhat realistic picture using the fossil record), i.e. the missing links are telling us something. This could even go to the core of abiogenesis. You have a primordial soup of chemicals. Was there an event that caused it to become an amoeba? We know it wasn't electricity.

The reason I'm going naturalistic is because with creation vs evolution, it has to be one way or another, i.e. life was created or evolved based on ToE. What if there were some other natural process or event?

 

[james bond]

Here's an example of a mutation event, if you let me call it that. It doesn't have to do with biology, but metallurgy. One of my hobbies is gold, silver and precious metals or stones.

How did gold come into existence?

Where does gold come from?

Stephen Hawking - Supernovas

 

[Segev Moran]

This is where we diverge. Yes, I am familiar with the evolution of whales, but don't think that's how it happened. It's simpler to evolve from a sea creature like tiktaalik. Otherwise, you're trying to find evidence to fit your theories instead of basing your theories on what has been observed. It doesn't show much common sense.

The evolution theory is based on observations. (as any other scientific theory)

Darwin was a naturalist, so I don't think he'll agree with this theory either. He didn't like humans evolving from apes either as he though apes were of low intelligence.

What Darwin liked or not is irrelevant.
The findings suggest that whales evolved from land mammals.
If you really are convinced that its not the case, do your best to go and prove your theory.

I think he eventually started thinking that early humans were of low intelligence and evolved from there.

Makes sense

He doesn't fit because the Neaderthal man was not of low intelligence. It was the superior fighter and gatherer of food. Certainly, he passed on his genes while not all of the Cro-Magnon did. I do accept the theory that they died out due to interbreeding with Cro-Magnon.

What would you consider intelligence?

 

[Polymath257]

My theory is the whales evolved out of tiktaalik using ToE. That seems more likely than a tetrapod. There may have been land creatures that evolved from the sea, but there isn't enough evidence for it. I don't have enough info about tiktaalik, but the fins of coelacanth are used to swim in multiple directions. They are connected to the backbone like that of land based creatures.

Nope. Whales are definitely mammals. They have mammalian biochemistry, mammalian development, etc. They also evolved from land animals that we can point to (pakicetus, for example; ambulocetus as a semi-aquatic form).

Tiktaalik was transitional between fish and amphibian, millions of years prior to the Miocene when whales evolved.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's an example of a mutation event, if you let me call it that. It doesn't have to do with biology, but metallurgy. One of my hobbies is gold, silver and precious metals or stones.

You have to learn the difference between a mutation (biology--DNA) and a transmutation (nuclear physics-protons and neutrons).

 

[james bond]

The evolution theory is based on observations. (as any other scientific theory)

What Darwin liked or not is irrelevant.
The findings suggest that whales evolved from land mammals.
If you really are convinced that its not the case, do your best to go and prove your theory.

Makes sense

What would you consider intelligence?

I have to disagree that it was based solely on observations. Early evolution was Darwinism and it was based on uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism was specifically designed to counter creationists' global flood theory which was the dominant theory up to that time. Charles Lyell was talented in that he elegantly described the method of how layers formed in rock instead of caused by flooding. This is why we have creation vs evolution arguments today. It's not a coincidence.

Just you saying that "findings suggest that whales evolved from land mammals" shows bias. That is based on fossils found to fit the ToE. Instead, I found a living fossil that fits the tiktaalik. Furthermore, what your evolution does not show is if sea creatures became tetrapods or land creatures and the land mammals. I already pointed out the coelacanth did not have its fins connected to its vertebra. This was true of tiktaalik, too. It can't turn into a tetrapod because, by definition, its limbs has to be connected to its vertebra. Thus, you have more missing links. Instead of arguing about the links, why not accept that these links are missing for a reason. This is the general observation we get with theory of common descent. What could the missing links be telling us instead?

Using the figure you presented earlier, we see that the sea creatures do not have arms or legs, i.e. limbs connected to vertebrae, but fins. That is a major mutation because their fins are not connected to vertebra. Instead, I think they're connected to muscle. This and common sense tells me that they're not related. The only way you could convince me is to show the process of how this mutation of fins as part of muscular structure to vertebrate/arms and vertebrate/arms to fins occurs naturally. I even gave you a clue that these fins were to swim in multiple directions such as upside down and backwards. Isn't that what the dolphins and whales do today?

Not makes sense ha ha. I meant Darwin made it up as he went along. He accepted the prior erroneous scientific racism thinking because he didn't have any other creature we could descend from.

General intelligence is the ability to learn or understand with new or difficult situations. We have ways to measure this by different battery of tests which are structured in such a way order to measure a certain trait or skill.

 

[james bond]

Nope. Whales are definitely mammals. They have mammalian biochemistry, mammalian development, etc. They also evolved from land animals that we can point to (pakicetus, for example; ambulocetus as a semi-aquatic form).

Tiktaalik was transitional between fish and amphibian, millions of years prior to the Miocene when whales evolved.

Please go on. I think you're missing a lot in-between.

 

[james bond]

You have to learn the difference between a mutation (biology--DNA) and a transmutation (nuclear physics-protons and neutrons).

No, you're missing my point completely. We may well be arguing creation vs evolution. What is the supernova and what is it made up of? That which comprises biological life?

 

[Polymath257]

I have to disagree that it was based solely on observations. Early evolution was Darwinism and it was based on uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism was specifically designed to counter creationists' global flood theory which was the dominant theory up to that time. Charles Lyell was talented in that he elegantly described the method of how layers formed in rock instead of caused by flooding. This is why we have creation vs evolution arguments today. It's not a coincidence.

Lyell was considerably before Darwin. he based his hypotheses on observation: that the known physical processes could explain the geological structures he observed.

Just you saying that "findings suggest that whales evolved from land mammals" shows bias. That is based on fossils found to fit the ToE.

OK, stop right there. Are you saying the fossils are faked? If not, it doesn't matter what the intentions of those who found them are. They are *still* evidence that whales evolved from land animals.

Instead, I found a living fossil that fits the tiktaalik. Furthermore, what your evolution does not show is if sea creatures became tetrapods or land creatures and the land mammals. I already pointed out the coelacanth did not have its fins connected to its vertebra. This was true of tiktaalik, too. It can't turn into a tetrapod because, by definition, its limbs has to be connected to its vertebra.

But it *could* evolve into a tetrapod where the limbs are connected.

Thus, you have more missing links. Instead of arguing about the links, why not accept that these links are missing for a reason. This is the general observation we get with theory of common descent. What could the missing links be telling us instead?

yes, the typical creationist ploy: when we find an intermediate, they ask for the two more at each end.

Using the figure you presented earlier, we see that the sea creatures do not have arms or legs, i.e. limbs connected to vertebrae, but fins. That is a major mutation because their fins are not connected to vertebra. Instead, I think they're connected to muscle. This and common sense tells me that they're not related. The only way you could convince me is to show the process of how this mutation of fins as part of muscular structure to vertebrate/arms and vertebrate/arms to fins occurs naturally. I even gave you a clue that these fins were to swim in multiple directions such as upside down and backwards. Isn't that what the dolphins and whales do today?

Have you looked at the details of the skull anatomy? They are quite different between tiktaalik and early whales. Tiktaalik has the skull of an early amphibian and the early whales have distinctive mammalian skulls.

Not makes sense ha ha. I meant Darwin made it up as he went along. He accepted the prior erroneous scientific racism thinking because he didn't have any other creature we could descend from.

Again, this was not original to Darwin. It goes to Linnaeus, who saw the similarities between humans and apes long before evolution was formulated.

General intelligence is the ability to learn or understand with new or difficult situations. We have ways to measure this by different battery of tests which are structured in such a way order to measure a certain trait or skill.

And humans are quite good at abstract reasoning. Although, humans can be worse at certain mathematical tasks than chimps.

 

[Polymath257]

Please go on. I think you're missing a lot in-between.

Well, that is sort of the point. *YOU* are missing the differences in skull morphology as well as the time between the specimens. Whales are clearly mammals. Tiktaalik was not.