To answer your first paragraph, evolution may lack absolute, 100% complete evidence. But there is enough to tell that it's very much possible. This may even sound "silly" to you, but look at a human and ape's features. The hands, lips and ears especially. Of course this can be dismissed as coincidence, but I t least find it reasonably believable. For your second paragraph, aside from an ancient time-lapse video, I don't know what exactly you are asking for at this point. I know you have no other theory, but if you were to state your own explaination for the origin of all species, what would it be? Last, I myself have admitted that evolution lacks absolute credibility, but you have to understand that there are many explainations for human origins being taught as fact aside from evolution. I'd have an easier time seeing your motivations as purely scientific if you showed those explainations the same skepticism and scrutiny.
It seems the same because you again fail to offer up your alternate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. You will not do so this time either and there will be the same next weekend. If by chance you actually wanted something different you could very easily do so, but quite simply you can't.
Really? You confront me as being anti-evolution? Really? I'm done with this thread. When pro-evolutionists who argue against Prunepicker confront other pro-evolutionists who argue against Prunepicker as if they were as anti-evolution as Prunepicker...It's time to move on.
You know what? I can't let this go. Curiosity if nothing else drives me to ask why are you treating me as if I were on the same side of the debate as Prunepicker when a quick flip back through my posts with him show me being clearly on the other side? And I know you're making the same arguments I was and so I thought that we were on the same side of the discussion. Case in point... ...and for comparison... So I 'm not exactly sure what alternative theory should I be presenting for your satisfaction since it sure as hell looked like we were in agreement on the whole Evolution thing.
Apparently, the only thing that would satisfy Prunepicker is a complete, unbroken set of generation-by-generation fossils of every organism that ever lived in a direct line of descent from the first bacteria to Charles Darwin's grand-father. /sarc/
Perhaps. But even that is not a guarantee. That might get dismissed as "a collection of similar-looking fossils organized in a way to conveniently make it look like gradual changes took place."
Prunnie will actually require the presentation of live animals brought forward in time and placed in his backyard with documented explanations of what they are and how they were attained signed by the individual of his choice, designated as competent in whatever area he desires. Video footage will be insufficient due to CGI fraud developed by the mermaid race from the other side of our flat Earth.
The entire fossil record by geological time period indicates increasing diversity and complexity of organisms. Face facts there is no evidence that would satisfy someone who is unwilling to actually specify exactly what evidence he requires to be convinced and/ or is unable or unwilling to put forth an alternative explanation.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect ensures that those who are the most profoundly ignorant of science continue to reject evolution based on their cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
Amen. Maybe there are other visitors to the thread. I don't like seeing these totally bogus ideas lying there without comment. ...of course, that is probably futile, too.
The Ideas have been countered often and completely multiple times for all to see. Now this has become little more than a broken record that only plays one silly tune. That the ignorant do not know they are is not unique, the amazing level it reaches most certainly is and so is the lack of embarrassment.
I'm not afraid of the truth. And why does there need to be an alternative theory? Answer, there doesn't need to be. Facts are far more important than wishful thinking. Good grief.
But you didn't. I read them. I read them. The problem is that YOU didn't read them. You just assumed them to be factual, which they weren't.
You failed to explain specific problems with any of the MANY cases that have been posted by several posters on this thread. At least as importantly, you claim that there is evidence that you would accept, but you don't state what that evidence could possibly be. As I remember, you have said that showing a transition would be meaningful to you, but you have excluded all the documented transitions resulting in new species that you have been presented. So, you need to make a statement about evidence of transitions that is FAR more detailed - that states explicitly what criteria you believe must be met. Once again, simply saying "nuh uh" is NOT good enough. It's essentially non-responsive.
Correct. So far there is nowhere anything near 100% complete evidence. Enough to theorize that it may be possible. This isn't sufficient evidence. Evolutionist said that man may have evolved from the Chimp and not the Orangutan even though the orangutan has more evidence in the DNA and the same number of teeth. Why do I have to have an explanation? I'm using science. That's why I'm skeptical. Evolutionist must extrapolate since the evidence is incredibly lacking hard evidence.
