Not true. Many have posted showing that they never read what they put up. Much like you. All you have to do is show evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Quite the contrary. My knowledge of evolution surpasses your knowledge. I've asked for evidence that supports the true sense of evolution. This evidence, if evolution is true, should be found in every dig on Earth. All I get from you is extrapolation and maybe some artistic renderings. But no evidence. Please show evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
I've posted documentation down to the genetic change mechanism whereby a population became separate. Differences from there are incremental over time. For those differences to become significant (such as birds from dinosaurs) enormous periods of time are required - which can NOT be pitched as an argument against evolution. Evolution doesn't claim a time frame, though it suggests the time frame for significant variation will be large compared to the life of a scientist. You suggest "extrapolation" as a negative only because we haven't found fossil or living evidence of every extinct species. But, that's nonsense, too, as there isn't any scientific requirement for that. Plus evolution is not falsified by what is found. So, we have the biology of several different methods of speciation from work in laboratories. We have documented speciation in the controlled environment of labs. We have the documentation of modern species, their dna, the experience and history of breeding through recorded history. We have the fossil record that includes no contradiction of evolution. And, we have the fact that there is no other competing theory. That's all science needs. In fact, it's more than enough. It's even enough for evolution to be a foundational principle of all modern biology.
Any child could find it. The existence of mountains of it is why evolution is both the most robust scientific theory in history and a fact observed by the global scientific community.
genetic change mechanism? You mean reproductive isolation, where there is no significant changes in the genetic structure? You get some horizontal changes, like with felids, and some reproductive isolation, but the phylogenetic structure is still a felid.. same with canids (with very little reproductive isolation). Why do felids and Equidae get more reproductive isolation than canidae? Why is there NEVER a transition (with evidence, not just asserted) between these distinct phylogenetic families? There is mtDNA evidence that shows the descendancy WITHIN canidae, Equidae, and felidae.. but NO evidence showing any connection or ancestry between them or any other family. So, how did you go from cats to dogs to horses, or any claimed descent? We can see a line of descent within Equidae, for example.. horses, donkeys, zebrea.. all descended from the same ancestor, that carried the genetic information to spawn each species. ..same with canids. But there is NO EVIDENCE, and no mechanism to jump over the genetic walls to morph into a completely different phylogenetic structure. Reproductive isolation within a phylogenetic family is not proof of evolution, as it only shows horizontal variability, and cannot make the kinds of changes predicted by universal common descent .
Phylogenetic families are are only part of the genetic tree of life. The fact that they don't show the differentiation you want to see is that you put your blinders on and viewed only part of the genetic tree. That doesn't form an argument against evolution. It forms an argument against BLINDERS.
Wrong. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There are mutations, and there is the evolutionary mechanism called "genetic drift". A transition between families? Are you serious?
You should feel embarrassed, being a grown man alive in 2018 who is so completely ignorant of the most robust scientific theory in history.
How do you know i am not a child of five? That is all the mental capacity needed to debate evolutionists!
So, your blinders allow you to see the entire phylogenetic tree? And you can see all the invisible evidence that links all living things together? You must be a visionary to see such mysteries! Is it something magical, that you are imbued with at birth, or did you acquire it in an Indoctrination center?
Ah, then it should be easy for you to define the mechanism, and provide evidence that this CAN happen, as well as it did happen. I think that is the challenge , here. You are supposed to provide evidence, not just fallacies and witty insults, to prove your points. So, do you have evidence? Or just fallacies and insults? I've only seen the latter.
Really? Interesting. Then why is it you ignorant deniers are only found on the internet, shouting into the void....and not out publishing mountains of science and debating biologists at universities and conventions?
It is quite easy, as it is a very simple concept. Frankly, you should feel embarrassed that you are not educating yourself about it, and instead are begging strangers in the internet to spoonfeed it to you. I'll start you off...you have a jar with 1000 white gumballs and 1000 black gumballs. You take a random sampling of 1000 gumballs, and put them in another jar. In this new jar, do you think you will have 500 of each color gumball?
Wow - you came so close!! What you didn't notice is that the "phylogenetic trees" you mention also have a common ancestor. So, there is no need for a "mechanism" to "jump over the genetic walls". Canidae and felidae (to just take two) share a common ancestor. No jumping was required. The common ancestor population had a speciation event that divided the population into two groups. The groups were probably indistinguishable without looking at the dna. From there, they gradually differentiated. Similarly, felidae had a speciation event permanently dividing the population, with both branches continuing to differentiate. Etc. Remember that when we say something is a Family or Clade or some other taxonomic grouping, that is us coming along after the fact and drawing lines in a nature that was not constrained by our line drawing.
What evidence do you have that felidae and canidae shared a common ancestor, other than assertion and plausibility? I can follow the mtDNA to see descent with lions and tigers, or wolves and chihuahuas. What evidence do you have that shows a link between tigers and wolves, for example? Their genetic structure is not comparable.. their genes are different, and their morphology is different. How can you claim a common ancestor? Your assertions describe the belief of universal common descent, but there is no evidence, other than righteous indignation and eye rolling..
It's the mechanism you got wrong - the DEFINITION of evolution!! It is certainly true that we don't have even fossil evidence, let alone living evidence of all life forms that have existed on earth. That is a totally stupid idea.
The fossil record, DNA studies, physiology, behavioral studies, etc. There are mountains of evidence. And it is all mutually supportive. I want you to answer a question, if you have the stones: What evidence would satisfy you that felidae and canidae have a common ancestor? Be specific.
There is the fact that the mechanism that is watched today, that is studied with dna analysis, that explains the fossil record without fault, is adequate. It is absolutely known that this mechanism exists. Lab scientists see it happen and have identified specific mechanisms for speciation and differentiation. You haven't proposed any evidence that the mechanism doesn't exist. And, after putting to rest your "jumping" argument, you haven't shown that evolution is inadequate. You DO at least imply that there must also be a second mechanism. BUT, you haven't provided ANY evidence of this second mechanism. You haven't even described what problems it would solve that evolution can't solve. If you want to explain your SECOND method, PLEASE DO!!! Having this kind of change in all modern biology would be startling!!
Then why do the evolutionists promote such ideas? And where did i say anything about fossils? Adding straw men to your ad hom stream? And you still have no mechanism for these structural changes at the genetic level, just assertions.. indignant assertions, but unevidenced assertions, nonetheless. Nobody is asking for 'mountains!!' Just ONE piece of supporting evidence for this hare brained theory would be an amazing feat of forum debate! I do not try to prejudge evidence, but look for what is there, without forcing the data into an unworkable belief. It is called scientific methodology, but it flies in the face of the modern pseudo science that declares the belief, then forces the data to fit.. like is done with AGW, gender identity, and universal common descent. A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. — Albert Einstein But i don't expect a return to reason, or scientific methodology.. certainly not on these forums, where fallacies are worshipped like a god.
What mechanism? You cannot define it, observe it, or see any evidence that such a mechanism even exists, except in fertile imaginations. Bluff. No such thing is 'known'.. it is only believed with religious intensity. Reproductive isolation in bacteria, or horizontal variability, does NOT equal structural changes in the genome. You still have the same phylogenetic structure, and only minor changes in traits. Nobody has ever seen the kinds of changes premised by ucd.. it is all a matter of faith. Ok. After you prove there is no God, I'll prove there is no mechanism for universal common descent. Are you seriously making this argument? ? I have implied no such argument. Is this another of your famous straw men? You have your fallacies, that you nurture and polish with indoctrinated passion. I certainly am no match for the practiced used of fallacies that the UCD believers exhibit. I've always thought that a reasoned, SCIENTIFIC debate about origins would be fun, and interesting. But the lame, ad hom filled, fallacy laden tactics of the UCD jihadists makes that impossible, so i don't even try, anymore. It is too frustrating, which is, i am sure, the goal of the anti-science crowd.. they disrupt with heckling, jeering, and every fallacy in the book, so that a rational, scientific inquiry is impossible. But i am evolving. Rather than go extinct with human reason, i can adapt to the changing environment and learn to heckle and ridicule, too! It will take a while for me to get the hang of it, but with the expert teachers and examples on the forums, i should be able to fit in to this new atmosphere. I'll be breathing the rarefied air of ad hom, equivocation, straw men, and all the wonderful fallacies that the UCD believers use so skillfully!
Which has already been presented. You rejected it, as you would rehject any evidence. Furthermore, A grown man begging strangers to spoonfeed him publicly available information is simply not a reasonable request, and you should feel embarrassed for making it. And you avoided my question. Let's try again: What evidence, specifically, would satisfy you that felidae and canidae share a common ancestor. Again...be specific.
You've been given large amounts of evidence by a good number of posters. You've demonstrated that from all that data you managed to remain ignorant of the very definition of evolution. Asking for more data is just your cheap dodge in your continuing attempt to remain ignorant.
