Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

No, how true.

You're just being a troll. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about, you reject all evidence given to you, and you refuse to source your own ridiculous assertions.

Come back when you're willing and able to have an actual informed discussion.

 

We have already posted evidence you ignore. One of the first things that you can see if you look at the research is that adaption has been proven time and time again. As we have seen these adaptions over eons could easily explain how species form. We have seen it in fruit flies, guppies, moths, and even higher primates.

Evolution as a science has made predictions that have come true. Be it genetic history, fossil record, or various experiments changing environments of species to see the change in the over-all expression of that species.

You should read what has already been posted by people who do evolutionary research. But you don't want to read apparently. Evolution is a complex idea and you want a nine word answer, so you can pick apart the nine words with out of context nonsense. The simple fact is that science has proven that evolution has been occurring since life first formed on this planet. You can learn about it or you can remain ignorant and rant all you want.

 

You may want to look up the accepted definition of troll.

Since you can not address the issue, you obfuscate.

 

That is not someones opinion. It is research done at Berkeley. I never claimed to be a scientist. Never said I didn't use google, in fact I asked you to several times because the info you keep asking me for is right there.

Yes, the first animal is a land animal. That's the whole point. The sequence shows a land mammal transitioning into a sea going mammal.

You are setting up impossible obstacles. You say you want to see one animal transitioning to another but when shown a land animal turning into a sea animal you say they are different animals.

By the way, any sources for the crap you've been posting?

 

Do you understand the difference between an empirical fact and someone's opinion?

I want to see EVIDENCE of one kind of animal that has transitioned into another kind of animal.

I will give you the tired old example of looking for the mouse to bat fossils/transitional process. A mouse jumps from trees, it decides (making light humor) to grow a little flap of skin between it's toes and arms to it's body to glide from tree to tree. This slooooooowly transitions into more skin flap and the leg and phalanges bones extend and become lighter as more and more skin grows into a wing. This happens over milllllions of years. About right so far?

What about at the point where the bouse (or is it a mat?) can still only glide, but neither can it run from predators anymore? What would you call that creature? I'd call it lunch.

So do you believe that for 100's of thousands or millllllions of years the bouse/mat will remain the fittest to survive?

 

That's what that is.

 

Wrong!! It is someone's interpretation of the empirical data. Do you know the difference?

 

He's demanding to be shown transitional forms and at the same time he's already stated any that are offered as evidence are frauds...we all know there are clear fossil transitions seen in whales, horses and humans but of coarse those are all frauds because he willfully chooses to deny any evidence that conflicts with his religious indoctrination...his next position will be to raise the bar and demand evidence of infinitesimal change which is absurd...when canus lupus familiaris began it's divergence from canus lupus it would physically appear identical (and many still are) the fossil remains would be identical because the initial changes weren't physical they were behavioural....change can come in tiny imperceptible incriments over long time periods and only after there has been an accumulation of behavioural and physical change is it physically evident...or in quick change scenario with punctuated equlibrium which leaves scant opportunity for fossilized remains to exist....

In both cases he demonstrates absolute ignorance of the fossilization process...

 

Bats didnt evolve from mice....mice- order rodentia, bats-order chiroptera

 

You got the point. Arguing the minutia isn't an argument.

 

So what you are looking for is something that you, with your vast paleontological experience interpret as a transitional fossil? I don't think that is possible because you just will not see it no matter how obvious.

The example above, which you have already dismissed as not good enough, is from U.C. Berkeley. Berkeley is an important and respected part of the scientific community and the example you characterize as "someone's interpretation" is accepted as a transitional fossil record by most everyone but you.

 

I asked for facts not opinion.'


View attachment 31431

 

You very rarely get "facts" in the way you are asking for them. That's not the way the scientific method works. Maybe you should look it up?

BTW, you come up with any sources for your "facts" from yesterday?



Where are your facts?

 

I was addressing creationism. I thought it was part of this discussion.

The part of evolutionary theory I cannot buy completely into is this idea of natural selection. I do buy into adaptation, as we see that happening in a human lifetime. With bacteria with insects and pesticides, with moths long ago in sooty industrial England. I don't buy into randomness when it comes to the universe being as it is, nor of it being present in the creation and then the evolution of life after it arose by randomness.

Parts of evolution have been proven, but you know it's called a theory for a reason, right? I won't insult your own intelligence by going into why its a theory. And the history of science is one that shows how tentative science is historically. You cannot say what science will be saying about the origin of life and how it got from point a to point b 500 years from now. I would think that some of the theory might still stand, but that isn't a given. And the reason is due to the limitation of current knowledge. And it is limited, which any real scientist amongst other scientists will readily admit. These guys are very humble when talking over science. No so much with the neophytes who play with science.

 

Actually YOU are wrong. Let me try to show you, again. A fact would be the speed of light is measured on Earth in our atmosphere at approximately 300,000,000 meter per second (+/-). Another fact is light can be slowed, under certain conditions in a lab to 25 kilometers per hour.

Both of those are facts. What you or I think about those facts are our opinions. We now have the fact that the speed light is not a constant velocity I think it is possible that light could have also traveled faster than 300M m/s. That's my opinion.

Now you try it. Supply a fact and offer you opinion.

 

Ok, my mistake then. I was just thinking about the origin of the species, which takes it back to a single cell, I think. So like the big bang, grant me one miracle and we can explain the rest.

But yeah, the catholic church accepted evolution at some point, as just the way the creator planned it. Evolution runs up against fundamentalists who don't believe their god used evolution, for some reason. But that is because they believe god created each species instantly, and one species doesn't turn into another species. And this thread is about creationism vs evolution. Creationism involves an instant creation of all species. So, that is where my comments about life being created comes in.

It isn't far fetched to think that the creation of life itself was something evolving, that evolved into life, and then the evolution continued.

 

Stop trying to defect. Where are your facts?

 

Hmm flying squirrels and sugar gliders don't seem to have a lot of problem from predators.....

That said, the flap of skin you're talking about is nothing like bat wings. bat wings are from the same basic bone structure as your arm, not a flap of skin from foreleg to backleg.




Also, there is no evidence that things like this take millions of years. That's another one of your strawment.

 

maybe you should read more.

.

Actually you couldn't insult my intelligence because you obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is.

Evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life.

Except like gravity we know that evolution is.....that is a fact. How it totally works is what the theory is about.

Before you start trying to insult people I suggest you read a high school biology book because you sound silly.

 

Ever hear of Einstein?

apparently he thinks your opinion is nonsense.

 

In the defense of creationists, evolution is a well-talked about theory in the philosophy of science. Did a unit on it a while ago, very interesting.

Not as straightforward as it might seem.

 

so the story of Genesis is just a story and not actually true

 

It is a story meant to explain how the world came about to people that had not grasp of the universe as we now know it. Parts of it are far closer to the truth than many would like to admit, interesting since many of those similarities were not actually known until recent history, makes one pause and think at least for a second, or should.