|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 'We' Evo's think..................... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
'MrHambre told Dan that a lot of creation can get done in a week, well a lot of evolution can get done in a million years.'
- Brad McFall Lol, great stuff Brad, I assume the million missing links will be found 1 per year in the 'transitional' sense. And when the evo's have finished creo spanking the evidence will be complete. Until then empty the garbage bin, cos here it comes: p.s 'we' is not me! - or Brad [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
MtW,
Until then empty the garbage bin, cos here it comes: What? Are you suggesting that transitionals predicted by the ToE don't exist? Are you making an a priori assumption that everything dies fossilises? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, they were all found in less than a minute:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Have fun!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Does that include the evidence, or is that just names given to extinct species. secondly I must ask, are you fitting species to your theory in order to show transitionals? If you are you wont mind me making my own conclusions in the same manner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Laf, Mike - all of those are fossils that have been found, and they have supplied descriptions of what is identifiable about the fossil. You have to remember, the ToE was initially conceived *because* of the fossil record - most YECs have absolutely no clue how extensive of a fossil history has been unearthed to date (this is actually just a fraction of it that is listed). Unfortuantely, the more fossils that are discovered and placed in the record (which every time - just coincidentally, I'm sure - both date and match morphologically, and are in the same layers as they should be) - the more "gaps" you suddenly see. If you proclaim a time period to be a gap, and then we find a fossil that fits in that gap exactly as it should (and don't find any that don't belong), suddenly you change to "well, now you've got two gaps, one on each side!". You have to realize how frustrating that gets, when people continually move the goalposts. Proclaim your gaps now, or forever hold your peace. (also, I suggest that before you comment further about "gaps" and what exists, that you actually read over the entire list so that you at least know the major fossils that have been found) ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Is a 'line of skulls for MTW' put together by humans to show transitionals? Or did history show the line, and the photographer took the picture? What about skulls that don't fit evolution theory , were they included in the line?
Isn't there non transitionals? or 'undecide' jigsaw phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I presume you think that was an excellent rebuttal of some sort Mike. If you would care to examine the evidence and give your reasons for rejecting it that might be a bit more meaningful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Karen,
Didn't we decide that it was a shark afterall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: The fossils in there are sorted by what date radioisotopic dating indicated them (which - I'm sure coincidentally - matches up with the layers that they were found in). There are no fossils that "don't fit" (that contain "chimeric" features, or contain features that would indicate descent from a species that didn't exist before it, etc). Again, if you think otherwise, present evidence. I have this sneaking suspicion that you're not going to, because it's rather hard to present evidence for something that doesn't exist. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
What's funny is the article is biased, it shows is what Creationism is according to an evolutionist setting the rules. It also assumes m.y. Also it's the same website AGAIN
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I think, Mike, that the way they are ordered was stated at the time you were originally shown them. It has been rather awhile now and you haven't had anything substantive to say since then.
What skulls would there be that didn't fit the theory? One would, of course, expect "non transitionals" (if I understand what you mean by that). Not all of the fossils found will necessarily be on the direct path to us. And likewise I would expect "undecided" fairly frequently. Though the paleoanthropologists being human, each may have their own decision but a real consensus about some specimens may take some time to develop. What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Did you check the thread recently (i.e., after I got the letter back from your "scientist")? It was exactly what I predicted it was I told you it was a megalodon! And megalodon teeth are only found in recent sediments - miocene. Apart from overthrusts and folding (both very obvious features), miocene sediments are only ever covered by pliocene, pleistocene and holocene sediments. Ever. They're a *recent* species. You will never find a deep megalodon tooth - and there have been *many* discovered (they're commodity items). In short, I was precisely correct: the large tooth was from a recent species of shark. The earliest sharks, buried in the deepest, oldest sediments are actually smaller than today's sharks, and are more eel-like. On the other hand, not everything back then was small (as I mentioned, the top predator of the seas in the days after xenacanthus was about 20 feet long - sharks were "dinner").
quote: It shows the major steps fossil record. Deal with it.
quote: Mike, they're not pulling those numbers out of a hat. You can ignore them if you want, but they're not just being coined for fun. That's what the isotopic ratios indicate - take it or leave it.
quote: Yeah. Imagine - a place where scientists publish things related to evolution. Heaven forbid! Are you done with ad-hocs? Care to make specific challenges, or do you live to make false generalizations without backing them up? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
My point is you say there are 'undecided' jigsaw phenomenon and Rei says there aren't. I am ASKING are there jigsaw phenomenon?
Yes - some 'tran'' may not fit the toe No - All skulls have been collected, in an unbiased way without removing jigsaw phenomenon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I read everything. Thanks for the input by the way.
'Mike, they're not pulling those numbers out of a hat.' But it is the 'evo'' side that believes m.y.If the article was non biased it could not mention them. A dead giveaway for an evolutionist based article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:As Rei replied, each of these names is an actual fossil found. And they are placed where they are in the series because they occur at the right time and they show the exact right mix of in-between characteristics. quote:Here is a link describing the transition from early reptiles to mammals. Fossils have been found, as indicated in the link I supplied in the post above, with these intermediate characteristics - note especially how the bones making the reptilian jaw joint was transformed into the mammalian inner ear. Fossils have been found, listed in Hunt's essay, above, at intermediate stages in this transformation - which, incidentally, creationists insisted was impossible. Note that these fossils were not placed into the family tree arbitrarily - a detailed description of these fossils do show exactly the right characteristics to be "between" reptiles and mammals, and they are found in strata in the right ages (dated independently, in most cases, by radiometric dating). Also realize that there was no reason to expect the fossil record to produce these fossils at all - except they are a prediction of evolution, and cannot be explained by creationism (except, perhaps, by simply saying that God doesn't like gaps between major animal groups).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024