Oh man and I though I was necroposting in a 4-month old venomous snake thread....
quote:BarackZero- Macroevolution is never ever claimed to be "the reasonable assumption." No, macroevolution is "fact, fact, fact." It is "as certain as gravity."
It is as certain as gravity. Gravity is itself not 100% certain to be true, only 99.999999999999999999999999999999...% true. There's always that slight possibility that the FSM is pushing us down to Earth with his noodley appendages.
quote:All who do not comport to these demands, not "reasonable assumptions," but demands can only be, in atheist-talk:
- a fundie - a bible-thumper - ignorant - one who knows nothing about science
That's almost everyone who's an ardent creationist on the internet.
quote:- someone who does not understand evolution
And that's pretty much everyone else. including you on account of the fact that you even mentioned "gaps in the fossil record".
I find your lack of ability to stay on topic rather disappointing BarackZero.
The Cambrian Explosion, feathered lizards and Haeckel's embryology drawings have absolutely no relevance to your attempts to utilize "gaps in the fossil record" as a case against evolution.
Lets focus on these "gaps" first and THEN proceed to the other topics. Let it be known that there has been no fossil yet discovered that is incompatiable with or otherwise debunks the Theory of Evolution. The fact that we haven't found an intermediate form to please you is absolutely meaningless for a few reasons.
1. We haven't uncovered literally all of the fossilized animal remains ever created in the history of geologic time.
2. As soon as a transitional form between two types of animals is discovered (like Najash) all it really does is create two more gaps to either side of it.
And 3. people like who you already have a pre-conceived notion of what is right and wrong will simply ignore the fact that an intermediate form was found an insist that more intermediates be found in the new gaps that were just formed.
Najash was a basal snake with diminutive limbs, showing an obvious link between lizards and snakes. Talk to the average creationist about it and the'll demand that more transitional forms between monitors and Najash, and Najash and true limbless snakes be found to satisfy the new gaps. I wouldn't put it past you to demand the same thing intentionally or otherwise.
Your lame attempts to simply change the subject are not new to me. Try something else next time.
quote:BarackZero- Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago. Why all these lies if evolution is so very factual?
For someone who's profile pic is a lizard I was very slow to catch this. Archaeoraptor is NOT a lizard. I repeat, NOT a lizard. Dinosaurs are NOT lizards. Lizards are Lepidosaurs, have a three chambered heart and their legs are slung to the sides of their bodies. The Archaeoraptor is an Archosaur, has a four chambered heart and its legs are held beneath its body. The two are about as closely related as you and a platypus.
Am I nitpicking details? Why yes I am. But hey, its not the same as nit-picking typos.