Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[truthofscripture]

True.


Wrong. Creatures encased in amber are not fossils. Fossils are creatures whose remains have been mineralised. Tiktalik for example is not encased in amber and is definitely a transitional species.



Firstly they are not fossils, secondly they are not that old and lastly I am unaware of any such specimens being claimed as transitional species (in the sense of showing a transition of significance).


True.



False. A libelous accusation as well that needs backing up if you want it taken seriously.

You do realise that in many cases we have multiple specimens of transitional species?



False. No modern primate bones were inserted. All of the bones of Lucy (and of the many other examples of Australopithecus) are fully fossilised, being around 3 million years old.

Seriously, what site are you getting this garbage from? It would be interesting to see what other nonsense they have.

Why are almost all of your assertions wrong? It seems that you endeavor to do nothing more than be contrary. Nothing more than contradicting others, merely so you don't have to admit that your opinions (which are SUPPOSED to be based on fact) that you got from others are all wrong and based on nothing. It's very very annoying.

 

[Mycroft]

The answer is: neither. They would have both evolved at about roughly the same time/speed.

 

[Sapiens]

truthofscripture: I am putting you too on the ignore list.

Well ... you are proof positive that ignorance is bliss.

 

[columbus]

The answer is: neither. They would have both evolved at about roughly the same time/speed.

This seems pretty simple to me.
Two almost identical plants are growing near each other. One has slightly more succulent and nutritious seed bearing ovaries, so it is more likely to get the fruit chomped and the seeds spread around by a critter. The critters that regularly eat the most nutritious fruits get strongest and so also are more likely to reproduce.
There just isn't anything hard to figure out here.
Tom

 

[McBell]

Lying about such things will not be of any benefit to you. Neither scientists nor surveys of such scientists bear what you claim. The only way to pretend that what you say is true, is to only ask scientist who wrongly believe in evolution vs. creation, and to read surveys who only survey the minority who believe such falsehoods.

I see you finally went over the edge...

 

[David M]

Why are almost all of your assertions wrong? It seems that you endeavor to do nothing more than be contrary.

fossil
noun

1. the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form.

Technically the amber itself is a fossil but the animal or plant inside is not.

So any backup for the claim that DNA testing has been used to prove transitional species to be fake? I note that you still haven't provided one example, not even one relating to something preserved in amber.

Nothing more than contradicting others, merely so you don't have to admit that your opinions (which are SUPPOSED to be based on fact) that you got from others are all wrong and based on nothing. It's very very annoying.

The facts refute most of your claims.

 

[truthofscripture]

fossil
noun

1. the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form.

Technically the amber itself is a fossil but the animal or plant inside is not.

So any backup for the claim that DNA testing has been used to prove transitional species to be fake? I note that you still haven't provided one example, not even one relating to something preserved in amber.



The facts refute most of your claims.

Again you post the opposite of what the truth tells us. Stop commenting to me or I shall have to add you to my ignore list.

 

[David M]

Again you post the opposite of what the truth tells us. Stop commenting to me or I shall have to add you to my ignore list.

Add away, it won't stop my commenting on the many inaccuracies in your posts.

 

[truthofscripture]

Add away, it won't stop my commenting on the many inaccuracies in your posts.

There are absolutely no inaccuracies in any of my posts, except in your mind. Not in reality. Consider yourself ignored.

 

[FearGod]

Why they fabricate fake evidences, what their goals ? is that for the sake of science ?

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[truthofscripture]

Why they fabricate fake evidences, what their goals ? is that for the sake of science ?

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My guess is that most of science now involves funding with strings attached: come up with the outcome the funding source wants, rather than what is actually found. Another possible reason, is that they reject Jehovah God, and fake evidence to support that belief. I am sure glory is another reason also, albeit false glory, as most such fakeries are sooner or later proven to be so.

 

[Ouroboros]

truthofscripture: I am putting you too on the ignore list.

Well ... you are proof positive that ignorance is bliss.

As I say sometimes, some people are more blessed with ignorance than others.

 

[dust1n]

Lucy is the common name of AL 288-1, several hundred pieces of bone representing about 40% of the skeleton of a female Australopithecus afarensis. In Ethiopia it is also known as Dinkinesh which means "you are marvelous" in the Amharic language.[3] It was discovered in 1974 at Hadar in the Awash Valley of the Afar Triangle in Ethiopia. In paleoanthropology, usually only fossil fragments are found and only rarely are skulls or ribs uncovered intact; thus this discovery was extraordinary and provided an enormous amount of scientific evidence. Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago,[1][4]and is classified as a hominin.[5]

The skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and ofbipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, supporting the debated view that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution.[6][7]

Beginning in 2007, the fossil and associated Ethiopian artifacts toured the United States for six years, as an exhibition entitled Lucy’s Legacy: The Hidden Treasures of Ethiopia. Part of the proceeds of admission fees were to go to the Ethiopian government for improvements to its museums. Lucy and the exhibit were returned to Ethiopia on 7 May 2013.

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why they fabricate fake evidences, what their goals ? is that for the sake of science ?

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pitdown man was created by a scientist who wanted to gain fame and fortune well after the theory had been fully established with lots of non-fabricated evidence. Isn't it also kind of funny that out of tens of thousands of different fossils we only have a handful of fakes? And isn't it weird how those fakes are found out by other scientists as if it was some sort of self correcting process.

 

[FearGod]

The pitdown man was created by a scientist who wanted to gain fame and fortune well after the theory had been fully established with lots of non-fabricated evidence. Isn't it also kind of funny that out of tens of thousands of different fossils we only have a handful of fakes? And isn't it weird how those fakes are found out by other scientists as if it was some sort of self correcting process.

If one thief is caught that doesn't mean that all thieves in the world were caught as well.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If one thief is caught that doesn't mean that all thieves in the world were caught as well.

That is true but if we have a store and we keep track of the inventory then we will know if someone steals. And if we put in camera's then we can further determine who is stealing. Much in the same way science has created some form of fail safe for self correction. There are exceptions to this but as a general rule all is revealed with time.

Though here is another problem. Are you suggesting that of the 10's of thousands of fossils they are all faked? Because a small handful were faked and then caught and determined to be fakes based off of all the real evidence? Are you saying that the evidence used to refute the fakes is also fake? If so we have a bit of a logical conundrum here.

 

[FearGod]

That is true but if we have a store and we keep track of the inventory then we will know if someone steals. And if we put in camera's then we can further determine who is stealing. Much in the same way science has created some form of fail safe for self correction. There are exceptions to this but as a general rule all is revealed with time.

Though here is another problem. Are you suggesting that of the 10's of thousands of fossils they are all faked? Because a small handful were faked and then caught and determined to be fakes based off of all the real evidence? Are you saying that the evidence used to refute the fakes is also fake? If so we have a bit of a logical conundrum here.

You and me and the others who have no business with the store how can we be sure of anything, what was in the inventory and if the owner had fabricated the story with his men.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You and me and the others who have no business with the store how can we be sure of anything, what was in the inventory and if the owner had fabricated the story with his men.

I can see that an analogy isn't going to be much good here.

Lets get back to what I stated earlier. What percentage of the fossils do you believe are fake? And if they are how did the scientists determine that the ones found to be fakes were fakes? Why is it that scientists were able to find out they were fake at all rather than some layman finding it out and uncovering some massive conspiracy theory? Is the only way, in your mind, for the theory to be viable if there had never been an attempt to fake evidence ever?

 

[FearGod]

I can see that an analogy isn't going to be much good here.

Lets get back to what I stated earlier. What percentage of the fossils do you believe are fake? And if they are how did the scientists determine that the ones found to be fakes were fakes? Why is it that scientists were able to find out they were fake at all rather than some layman finding it out and uncovering some massive conspiracy theory? Is the only way, in your mind, for the theory to be viable if there had never been an attempt to fake evidence ever?

The puzzle remains of how it started ?

We have evidences that smoking is dangerous and may lead to cancer, but does that mean they should stop producing cigarettes.
Who cares ? if you want to smoke you won't look for evidences and if you want to disbelieve you won't look for evidences as well ?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The puzzle remains of how it started ?

We have evidences that smoking is dangerous and may lead to cancer, but does that mean they should stop producing cigarettes.
Who cares ? if you want to smoke you won't look for evidences and if you want to disbelieve you won't look for evidences as well ?

In my opinion yes it means we should stop producing cigarettes. We stopped putting lead in our oil based products because it was killing us.

But how it started? You can't keep taking things back all the way to the big bang for every single issue that we have answers for that you don't agree with. If so this is just gonna get really boring really fast and any sort of discussion will become meaningless. The big bang itself is a mystery and no one had all of the answers on it. In fact I don't think anyone has actual "answers" for it. People have theories, beliefs and hypothesis about it but no one has true answers.