"Best" evidence for evolution.

The features shared by all Mammals and Carnivora are not identical, they are similar, they may have the same function, but morphologically they are different.

quote:

---

The features shared by all Mammals and Carnivora are not identical, they are similar, they may have the same function, but morphologically they are different.

---

Really? Perhaps you can explain what you mean and tell me why you think that the features shared by canids are all identical and not morphologically different.

The paw of all Canidae is identical as I am using the term. The paw of all Felidae is identical. The wing of all Aves is identical, that is it is built on the same kind of bone structure and it's festooned with the same kind of feathers though differently arranged and in different colors etc. Neither of these features will be found in any other group. That's what I'm working on anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The paw of all Canidae is identical as I am using the term

---

Which is meaningless unless you define the term.

quote:

---

Neither of these features will be found in any other group.

---

Which does not mean that the features used to define the broader groups are not identical as you use the term. Whatever that means.

That's OK, I know what I mean, it's just a matter of getting the definition precise so even you might eventually know what I mean. I'm sure I'll have to make some adjustments but I've got the ballpark figured out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That's OK, I know what I mean, it's just a matter of getting the definition precise so even you might eventually know what I mean.

---

The sensible way would be to compare examples. But since we already know that you use inconsistent criteria to support pre-determine conclusions the suspicion that you will do so again is fully justified.

If I really cared to prove anything to you I would make the great effort of trying to find examples. But I don't. And it does take a huge effort to find the right pictures for comparison.ABE: You don't care about being fair, you don't care to try to understand what I'm getting at, all you want to do is find some way, any way will do, to debunk anything I'm saying. Anything. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well let us consider your own example of the bird’s wing. It is certainly not true that all bird’s wings are identical. There is considerable difference in size and shape and aerodynamics. (For instance I find it very easy to identify starlings in flight since their wing shape is quite distinctive compared to the other common birds around here).So obviously you do not mean that bird’s wings are morphologically identical. But then how can you hope to rule out the features defining larger groups - when you were busy denying that those features even existed earlier today? Obviously you never considered it before.

I'd probably classify them as a Kind, or perhaps within a larger group of insects if I ever got into that area. Morphologically they are the same, that's the main criterion for the Kind/Species for me. Shape of body, form and number of legs, shape and function of proboscis. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

ABE: You don't care about being fair, you don't care to try to understand what I'm getting at, all you want to do is find some way, any way will do, to debunk anything I'm saying. Anything

---

Unlike you I do care about fairness, I do try to understand what you are getting at and I do care about getting it right, rather than finding some excuse.And that is exactly what you hate.

All I have is Google Image. Linnaeus' specimens were more useful but on the other hand the internet is jjust about miraculous for such purposes. Up to a point anyway. I can find dog footprints, wolf footprints, coyote footprints, fox footprints though I wanted to find good pictures of the actual paw and that I can't find although part of the problem is that my eyes are so bad. But the footprints are a very good start, certainly all the same Kind there. Mostly my own memory of course. If I could get a grant from, say, Bill Gates, I'd hire someone to do all that for me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mechanical sorting by a huge volume of water of the sedimentary strata containing dead creatures is a lot more possible than the accumulation of such sedimentary strata over hundreds of millions of years which just happen to become the graveyard of a very specific set of dead creatures that just happened to fall into exactly the right conditions for fossilization though that is highly improbable and a very rare occurrence even in the best of circumstances. And repeat this rare occurrence every few hundred million years to boot. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Mechanical sorting by a huge volume of water of the sedimentary strata containing dead creatures is a lot more possible than the accumulation of such sedimentary strata over hundreds of millions of years which just happen to become the graveyard of a very specific set of dead creatures that just happened to fall into exactly the right conditions for fossilization though that is highly improbable and a very rare occurrence even in the best of circumstances.

---

Mechanical sorting cannot produce the observed order. And let us not forget that trace fossils - such as dinosaur footprints - are consistent with the order of the remains.There is no improbability in the accumulation of sedimentary strata over long periods of time. Sedimentation is an observed process.Naturally the dead creatures in the sediment will be those that were alive around the time when the sediment was deposited. This explains the variety of fossils found in each period far better than any mechanical sorting.

You know nothing about what's possible with mechanical sorting. And I've already explained all that about trace fossils. And no, sedimentation of the kind we see in the strata is NOT observed today. Give it up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You know nothing about what's possible with mechanical sorting

---

Wrong. Not that it takes much to see that it isn’t possible, as thoroughly discussed in previous threads.

quote:

---

And I've already explained all that about trace fossils.

---

You have explained how you think they occurred but not why they fit into the ordering. Obviously they should not if the order was due to mechanical sorting.

quote:

---

And no sedimentation of the kind we see in the strata are NOT observed today.

---

That’s your opinion. It’s not an opinion shared by people who have seriously studied the matter.