What is there to say? There are birth defects all the time in life. Are you claiming that this kind of defect at birth is evidence for evolution? It would be up to you to demonstrate that. Birth defects and mutations are not a mechanism for verticle, macro changes in the genome. Did this birth defect repeat itself in subsequent generations? Did the appendage actually function as legs? Or were they just a 'looks like!' impression of plausibility? There are a lot of scientific hurdles to cross, before you can declare this as 'evidence of common descent!' ..and, it is a stretch to call those things, 'legs!'
I take it you do not see the "Unique Imagination" required to dismiss something with ample evidence in favor of something with no evidence in order to support some preconceived notion. This is generally referred to as purposeful ignorance or something less diplomatic that I am unwilling to type. Birth defects are such a pathetic explanation you should be ashamed to state it but likely do not even realize it.
A 'looks like!' perception of plausibility does not compel a conclusion. That is belief, not science.
Regarding fossils: "Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” ~Stephan J Gould The fossil record is limited, sporadic, and says NOTHING about universal common descent that is not just speculative, based on plausibility. Belief that fossils are evidence of common descent are highly imaginative, with no empirical evidence to compel that conclusion. HOW does finding an extinct or living fossilized creature compel a conclusion of universal common descent?
By comparing and noting subtle variations and dramatic changes from one fossil to another in dated timelines, the gradual morphing within species can be established up to and including current living creatures. Though any fossil comparison requires a level of speculation, experimental and established biological criteria can be used to verify basic principles and confirm results. There will never be an absolute in this field as everything found is long dead but the results of this speculation has been shown valid.
So to Summarize You Lost on Vestigiality, and could Not answer me rebutting your Quote Mining of a mini-Noboby on common descent. You could NOT answer. and so I suspect I'm on 'Ignore' for that reason.. you can't debate me. That, and pointing out despite all the "Science Talk" you don't even believe in Species (or really know the term), but instead believe the Creationist term "Kinds" (aka, They Look Close to me!) Now you post/QUOTE MINE Stephen J Gould as a rebuttal to Evolution! That's Right, about the World's foremost and well known advocate OF Evolution is taken OUT of Context in yet another Brazen and Ridculous single sentence of Quote Mining. Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould StephenJayGould.org 1994 Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" [.....] "...The rise of Creationism is Politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream. The basic attack of modern Creationists Falls Apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.[......] In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory... [......] Well, Evolution is a Theory. It is also a Fact. . [......] Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. [......] The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among it's supporters. [......] IOW, your practice here: Quote Mining. One has to be Brazen to 'quote mine' well know Evolution advocate Gould as being the opposite! That or count on an audience that is beyond naive. This one especially: Backfired.
Funny, because some of the earliest opponents to Darwin's theory of evolution was the Soviet Union itself, good old progressives.
The convergence of evidence from genetics, anatomy, embryology, molecular biology etc. adds serious weight to the validity of the fossil record.
Usfan: "Nobody has presented any evidence!!!" (2 solid pages of evidence follow) Usfan: " nobody has presented any evidence!" *Charlatan*
Stalin became an atheist in Seminary, after reading 'Origin of Species'. Marx was thrilled with OOS, and saw it as a confirmation, or scientific validity, to his atheistic ideology. But progressives have always been joined at the hip with universal common descent. Wilson, Dewey, and many of the early progressives and eugenicists kept that theory as an integral part of their ideological worldview. ..Nazis and communists, as well. This has no bearing on the scientific evidence for the theory, but it does show the philosophical basis for believing it, given the dearth of empirical evidence. That is why so many believe it. It does not have good science behind it, it is a philosophical construct, to give the illusion of 'science!' to a worldview, aka, religious belief.
Good assertion! Do you have any evidence for these beliefs? ..not all at once.. how about ONE bit of evidence from any of those fields?
Let's take a pause from your dishonest queries to let you answer some questions. Canis lepophagus Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since. Where did they come from? Where did they go?
Do you truly want to understand the case for evolution? I see a lot of thought and time put into this post but an incredible amount of misunderstanding of the reasons for the theory. I am fine with people using arguments I find weak or false but at least these are arguments that address the topic. In your case your arguments just miss the point entirely and ignore obvious parts of the theory. Lets start. I will give a brief overview of your arguments and we can discuss some of interest. This experiment isn't used as an example of speciation but of evolving complex new abilities. You misunderstand how the argument is being used. This tribe claim is made without a scrap of evidence. We do see neanderthal DNA but we also share DNA with apes too and that certainly doesn't prove apes are human. You also don't address the evidence fossil experts present that neanderthals are distinct. You completely ignored the fossil evidence for horse evolution which is the main evidence experts use to explain horse evolution. Just because some examples are wrong doesn't mean they all are and just because scientists in the 1800s made major mistakes don't mean experts today in modern science are just as wrong. You don't go into any detail to refute common examples of vestigial organs researchers bring up. There is no either or with being a type of creature (embryo) or being a body part (tail) and these are drastically different types of classifications. All animal embryos have obvious tails which are exactly the same as in human embryos and the tails in embryos remain tails at birth in animals. The tail is defined by its physical appearance and characteristics, its a long thing that sticks out of the back of an animal. There are multiple conflicting theories about everything in science, what is import is how much they disagree, what do they all agree on, and what does the strongest evidence support. You are ignoring the obvious reptilian trains these fossils have and the other related transitional fossils found in order. You are completely ignoring mutations which is evolution's mechanism for change. Why not at least try to address it? Fruit flies are not a species, but in informal term for thousands of species in the fly families Tephritidae and Drosophilidae which includes about 600 genuses and 10,000 species. There is an incredible amount of variation and diversity in fruit flies and just because they are all small and look the same to the human eye, doesn't mean they are the same and should all be clumped together. Also, the vast majority of animals don't experience radical evolution of completely new forms and instead stick to the same template and evolve based on that.
@usfan Canis lepophagus Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since. Where did they come from? Where did they go?
Oh, BS. What are branchial clefts and how do they relate to embryogenesis then how does this correlate with micro and macroevolution? Why are they important?
You see Neanderthal DNA in Homo sapiens but you don't see Homo sapiens DNA remnants in Homo neanderthalis. Why is that?
There have been about a dozen separate species of humans which have disappeared. The Asians and the Negroes are simply lucky that they bred in sufficient numbers so as not to disappear while the Whites and Jews were taking over Europe and Mesopotamia respectively.
Skin color is just another physical characteristic, together with jaw size and forehead slope, that precisely DOES define a species. Your post is naïve.
The "species" is homo sapiens and jaw size or shin color are variants within it. In fact both are variants with a variant within the variant we call race. You should place me on ignore as well since I also pointed out fact.
