bats wings are in no way similar to bird's wings.
Did I ever say that they are identical? The intention was to show similarity. There are differences between the wings of birds and bats but they are both designed for flight. However, back to the scenario, evolutionists would hypothesize that such differences were overcome by mutations since they already claim that all life forms diversified initially because of mutations.
the connection to "reptiles" and birds is far, far more obvious using only skeletons than the connection between birds and mammals.
Where is the logic in claiming that birds evolved from reptiles? Since you quickly recognized the large physiological differences between a wing of a bat and that of a bird, you said that evolutionists would not claim that birds evolved from bats because of these differences. However, evolutionists failed to see the termendous physiological differences between reptiles and birds and thats why they claim that they have evolved from each other. The vast differences between reptiles and birds will render any attempt of transition ineffective. Even random mutations are no way able to account for such evolution. But evolutionists are only willing to make a huge leap over this gap and just hope that evolution of birds from reptiles somehow occured without being able to explain how it happened. While daydreaming about transitional fossils for this scenario.
Now lets say that a mutation gave a reptile something that looks like a wing (replacing hands)in a primitive form that could not fly. This would not be considered advantagous to a reptile used to crawl or use its hands for other tasks. Such a handicap would be immediatly eliminated by nature. This is just one out of many other obstacles in the way of such transition. Mutations are not super changes that could cross these obstacles and provide advantages to a reptile use to live and function on land.
it's not according to science that bat are birds, but according to the bible:
First of all, before you quote any thing to me from the bible know that I am not christian. Second, if bats were birds in the bible, apes are humans in evolution. If there is no logic in the first claim, there is no logic in the second either.
no species adopts traits from other species. what you're thinking of hybridization.
Hybridization is not common in nature. Mostly introduced by human intervention and not purely by natural effects. However, hybrids have no advantages that can aid in evolution. The hybrid zygote either dies before maturation or results in an infertile offspring.
horses are tetrapods. actually, all land animals are tetrapods. find me a single vertbrate with more than four limbs.
Ok! how is that related to the point? There are no land animals with more than 4 limbs in reality. It is only found in evolution were evolutionsts claim fish with no limbs gaining legs, reptiles losing limbs, limbs turning to wings, legs turning to tails, and other fantasies.
in english, we are limited to 26 letters. look at what we can say.
True! with only 26 letters you get thousands of english words. But you dont find english words with chinese or indian letters. Similarly, populations vary in their own letters but do not aquire new letters from other languages. Because if they do, the word would not make sense with forign letters. But evolution is like putting a letter from another language randomly in an english word giving it a new meaning! Which is not realistic.
i would challenge you to provide me with a hole in the record. but it's obvious that you wouldn't present me with anything evolution is actually claiming -- just bats into birds and horses with wings and other things that demonstrate you don't actually have the foggiest idea WHAT evolution is.
Im not willing to hear stories or evolution fantasies. However, do you know that the so called human evolution is not a tree of gradual change. It is rather a "foggy" bush with either humans or apes and nothing in between except speculations or false links. (more details will be provided later).
we see more diversity in younger rock than we do in older rock.
NOt true, the cambrian explosion is like a rapid diversification at the base of the evolutionary tree and not in the branches. Most of the groups of organisms we know today have been established at the cambrian. Any claim that the cambrian explosion did not possess vast diversity is untrue. More than 60 phyla have been established at the cambrian explosion. 60 and not 2 or 3. This very old era was very diverse which alone invalidates the claim of "the younger the layer, the more complex".
no, i never said there were only hard fossils in the cambrian. i'm sure somebody's found a few soft creatures. but there are *NO* hard creatures in precambrian. none. at all. only softies. the "sudden explosion" is a product of the development of hard parts -- letting animals fossilize better.
This is what I mean, your hypothesis that hard parts developed to allow for more fossils is unproven and speculative. It is just to cover the lack of explanation and evidence. Just claiming that hard parts developed doesnot make it true because it is just a claim and no more. There are no fossils to show how a complex creature in the cambrian evolved from unicellular life forms. The abrupt appearance and disappearance of certain species cannot be explained by evolution but in only one phrase: "the fossil record is incomplete!".
reptiles splay their legs, to remain close to the ground for warmth. there is no cold-blooded animal alive today that walks with straight legs,
How can a cold-blooded reptile become a warm-blooded bird and with a much higher metabolism? I would like to see an answer with no usual fantasies but with a real scientific explanation.
"laboratory conditions" means controlled, observed, documented, and experimented upon. it doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside the lab, where things are much more complicated.
There is still a human intervention involved. Otherwise nature doesnot act by itself to form new species. The only speciation evolutionists refer to is when calling a descendant of a fish (for instance)from the hundridth generation a new species even though it is still a fish.
genetics tells us that we share about 99% of our DNA with chimps. heck, we share about half of our DNA with the banana the chimpanzee is eating.
Here is something that clearly defies genetics: the myth of the 99% similarity between humans and chimps. This is not true. This exaggerated estimation was based on an experiment in the 1980s whereby only a group of protien were compared and not the entire genomes. These protiens where in humans and chimps where found to be 99% similar. However, those are some of the most basic and necessary proteins found in almost all organisms and not only in humans and chimps.
As you mentioned, we share genetic similarity with the bannana but that does not mean we are descendants of the bannanas. Similarly, we share other similarities to worms, insects, and other plants. Therefore, relying on genetic similarity does not cleary show you evolutionary lines of descent.
sorry, no giant robots here.
NO giant robots such as transformers. But evolution has even more unrealistic living transformers.
In reality, the fossil record is actually full of gaps otherwise evolutionists wouldnt be still digging all over the world in search of imaginary trasitional links. Also, we should have seen countless transitionals both living and fossolized. But every species is cleary identified and isolated from others.
Here is an important fact. Evolutionists believe that they could fill the fossil record with transitionals by claiming that all species are considered transitional forms. However, this is a distortion of the actual meaning of transitional. A transitional link should be an intermeidiate species (in between) two other different species that shows mixed traits of both species. There are no such species in the fossil record. That is why evolutionist started placing a distinct species (ie. archaepteryx) between 2 other very distinct species of reptiles and birds, even though archaepteryx is not a transitional link with a mix of reptiles and birds because it is an identified and distict species by itslef.
Note: dont bother reply because im leaving the thread and wont be available to read replies.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
bad, bad, you
™ Version 4.2
