Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Nov 16, 2022 4:02:36 GMT
Still all in a straight line, just like the fact that we have wolves and poodles in the world. Both are the same type of creature, with neither turning into any other type of creature.
Still micro evolution. Feel free to post examples instead of the generic "older" and "newer" animals.
You have more skepticism for this evidence than an atheist does for the existence of God.
Probably because Paleo has a four year old's grasp of science.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 21, 2022 2:28:09 GMT
Still all in a straight line, just like the fact that we have wolves and poodles in the world. Both are the same type of creature, with neither turning into any other type of creature.
Still micro evolution. Feel free to post examples instead of the generic "older" and "newer" animals.
You have more skepticism for this evidence than an atheist does for the existence of God. What evidence? There is none for macro evolution. And evolution is supposed to be based on scientific evidence, while religion is not.
Once again, show me where the lines cross in any significant way and I'll take a look. That's all I ask. But the theory breaks down from a lack of evidence of any major transitions between types of creatures.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 21, 2022 2:30:49 GMT
You have more skepticism for this evidence than an atheist does for the existence of God.
Probably because Paleo has a four year old's grasp of science.
You've contributed exactly nothing to this conversation other than these childish hit and run tactics. Don't be a loser and pretend you've made any intelligent points on this thread; that just makes us laugh at you more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 8:59:53 GMT
Yet more creationist BS.
Perhaps a huge meteor will strike earth and relieve us.
If we get one the size of pale con's ego, we're all dead! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 21, 2022 14:31:32 GMT
You have more skepticism for this evidence than an atheist does for the existence of God. What evidence? There is none for macro evolution. And evolution is supposed to be based on scientific evidence, while religion is not.
Once again, show me where the lines cross in any significant way and I'll take a look. That's all I ask. But the theory breaks down from a lack of evidence of any major transitions between types of creatures.
Any land animal and whales. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Nov 21, 2022 15:41:03 GMT
You have more skepticism for this evidence than an atheist does for the existence of God.
Probably because Paleo has a four year old's grasp of science.
Stop insulting 4 year olds ...
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 22, 2022 2:44:29 GMT
What evidence? There is none for macro evolution. And evolution is supposed to be based on scientific evidence, while religion is not.
Once again, show me where the lines cross in any significant way and I'll take a look. That's all I ask. But the theory breaks down from a lack of evidence of any major transitions between types of creatures.
Any land animal and whales. Oh wow, now that's a mighty leap. So, whales became suddenly became land animals while remaining whales and they all lived happily ever after! And the cow jumped over the moon.
Now all you need is fossil evidence of the thousands of iterations that miraculously failed to survive in between whales and land animals and you're golden. Piece of cake.
I'm sorry to be flippant, but there's nothing there beyond unsupported theory. Macro evolution is still unsupported despite the best efforts of paleontologists to find proof since the days of Darwin.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 22, 2022 2:46:57 GMT
Yet more creationist BS.
Perhaps a huge meteor will strike earth and relieve us.
If we get one the size of pale con's ego, we're all dead! Asking for proof that you can't provide is "ego"? Nope, as Joe Friday always said, just the facts. That's all that I need and you haven't delivered. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 22, 2022 3:33:35 GMT
Any land animal and whales. Oh wow, now that's a mighty leap. So, whales became suddenly became land animals while remaining whales and they all lived happily ever after! And the cow jumped over the moon.
Now all you need is fossil evidence of the thousands of iterations that miraculously failed to survive in between whales and land animals and you're golden. Piece of cake.
I'm sorry to be flippant, but there's nothing there beyond unsupported theory. Macro evolution is still unsupported despite the best efforts of paleontologists to find proof since the days of Darwin.
No, whales did not become land animals. Nobody has suggested that. As for land animals becoming whales, yes there is fossil evidence of that. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Nov 22, 2022 5:07:33 GMT
Probably because Paleo has a four year old's grasp of science.
Stop insulting 4 year olds ...
LOL
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 28, 2022 15:00:31 GMT
Oh wow, now that's a mighty leap. So, whales became suddenly became land animals while remaining whales and they all lived happily ever after! And the cow jumped over the moon.
Now all you need is fossil evidence of the thousands of iterations that miraculously failed to survive in between whales and land animals and you're golden. Piece of cake.
I'm sorry to be flippant, but there's nothing there beyond unsupported theory. Macro evolution is still unsupported despite the best efforts of paleontologists to find proof since the days of Darwin.
No, whales did not become land animals. Nobody has suggested that. As for land animals becoming whales, yes there is fossil evidence of that. Poor evidence at best.
Indohyus was not a direct ancestor of whales, but they diverged from the whale's evolutionary line after gaining some traits of whales, such as their unique inner ear and thick bones. Indohyus had a long thick tail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 28, 2022 15:07:18 GMT
No, whales did not become land animals. Nobody has suggested that. As for land animals becoming whales, yes there is fossil evidence of that. Poor evidence at best.
Indohyus was not a direct ancestor of whales, but they diverged from the whale's evolutionary line after gaining some traits of whales, such as their unique inner ear and thick bones. Indohyus had a long thick tail.
Well, I mentioned no specific species, but now you’re stuck with no explanation for this one. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 22, 2022 20:58:00 GMT
Probably because Paleo has a four year old's grasp of science.
Stop insulting 4 year olds ...
Were that true (little that he says is true after all), it makes Fiddler looks even more sad with an alleged 4 year old kicking his ass into orbit as often as I do. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 22, 2022 21:06:32 GMT
Poor evidence at best.
Indohyus was not a direct ancestor of whales, but they diverged from the whale's evolutionary line after gaining some traits of whales, such as their unique inner ear and thick bones. Indohyus had a long thick tail.
Well, I mentioned no specific species, but now you’re stuck with no explanation for this one. *SIGH*. Let's bring in the rest of that menagerie that is allegedly the whale's lineage (Hint: it's not)
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
And even this evogram is wrong:
.....paleontologists have found “the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered,” which is about 49 million years old. As we’ve discussed here on ENV in the past, whale evolution has faced problems because of the short timescale (~10 million years) allowed by the fossil record for whales to evolve from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales. As Richard Sternberg has argued, the many anatomical changes necessary to convert a land-mammal to a whale could not take place by Darwinian evolution even in 10 million years. There just isn’t time. But this new fossil might imply that the amount of time available was actually less than 5 million years.
Oops.
Once again, macro evolution fails as a theory....even concerning whales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 22, 2022 21:16:22 GMT
Well, I mentioned no specific species, but now you’re stuck with no explanation for this one. *SIGH*. Let's bring in the rest of that menagerie that is allegedly the whale's lineage (Hint: it's not)
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
And even this evogram is wrong:
.....paleontologists have found “the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered,” which is about 49 million years old. As we’ve discussed here on ENV in the past, whale evolution has faced problems because of the short timescale (~10 million years) allowed by the fossil record for whales to evolve from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales. As Richard Sternberg has argued, the many anatomical changes necessary to convert a land-mammal to a whale could not take place by Darwinian evolution even in 10 million years. There just isn’t time. But this new fossil might imply that the amount of time available was actually less than 5 million years.
Oops.
Once again, macro evolution fails as a theory....even concerning whales.
So where did whales come from and why are they so skeletally "funny"? And why all those "species that look like transitional species but aren't transitional species, they're independent species that look like two different kinds of animals, but they're not, and although they used to exist for some reason they no longer do and there's no reasonable explanation why"? By the way, I'm not at all convinced that evolution takes as long as people think it does. "Natural selection" is not the only mechanism at work. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 23, 2022 0:22:42 GMT
*SIGH*. Let's bring in the rest of that menagerie that is allegedly the whale's lineage (Hint: it's not)
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
And even this evogram is wrong:
.....paleontologists have found “the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered,” which is about 49 million years old. As we’ve discussed here on ENV in the past, whale evolution has faced problems because of the short timescale (~10 million years) allowed by the fossil record for whales to evolve from fully terrestrial mammals to fully aquatic whales. As Richard Sternberg has argued, the many anatomical changes necessary to convert a land-mammal to a whale could not take place by Darwinian evolution even in 10 million years. There just isn’t time. But this new fossil might imply that the amount of time available was actually less than 5 million years.
Oops.
Once again, macro evolution fails as a theory....even concerning whales.
So where did whales come from and why are they so skeletally "funny"? And why all those "species that look like transitional species but aren't transitional species, they're independent species that look like two different kinds of animals, but they're not, and although they used to exist for some reason they no longer do and there's no reasonable explanation why"? By the way, I'm not at all convinced that evolution takes as long as people think it does. "Natural selection" is not the only mechanism at work. Great questions that are not answered by the discredited idea of macro evolution, which is exactly the point of this thread. You're getting warmer by realizing that natural selection is a poor mechanism to rely on, but the complexities of the changes required to get close to the evolution of some large land based ferret into a whale is nearly impossible statistically without some other intelligent force at work. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Dec 23, 2022 0:28:35 GMT
This whole macro/micro evolution thing is a load of bull crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 23, 2022 3:03:14 GMT
So where did whales come from and why are they so skeletally "funny"? And why all those "species that look like transitional species but aren't transitional species, they're independent species that look like two different kinds of animals, but they're not, and although they used to exist for some reason they no longer do and there's no reasonable explanation why"? By the way, I'm not at all convinced that evolution takes as long as people think it does. "Natural selection" is not the only mechanism at work. Great questions that are not answered by the discredited idea of macro evolution, which is exactly the point of this thread. You're getting warmer by realizing that natural selection is a poor mechanism to rely on, but the complexities of the changes required to get close to the evolution of some large land based ferret into a whale is nearly impossible statistically without some other intelligent force at work. Problem is you need a "mechanism." "Miracle" could be a mechanism, but that's a whole lot of miracles happening...like a whole lot of the time. In addition to "natural selection" there is also "sexual selection," which would breed much faster changes than natural selection alone. But just saying "macro-evolution is discredited" is simply not true. Because it's not discredited. The tired line of "no transitional species" doesn't work either. They're all transitional. All the time. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 28, 2022 15:50:04 GMT
Great questions that are not answered by the discredited idea of macro evolution, which is exactly the point of this thread. You're getting warmer by realizing that natural selection is a poor mechanism to rely on, but the complexities of the changes required to get close to the evolution of some large land based ferret into a whale is nearly impossible statistically without some other intelligent force at work. Problem is you need a "mechanism." "Miracle" could be a mechanism, but that's a whole lot of miracles happening...like a whole lot of the time. In addition to "natural selection" there is also "sexual selection," which would breed much faster changes than natural selection alone. But just saying "macro-evolution is discredited" is simply not true. Because it's not discredited. The tired line of "no transitional species" doesn't work either. They're all transitional. All the time. "Sexual selection" would cause faster changes, but it implies intelligent design rather than the slow, statistically challenged randomness of Darwin's hogwash. Dogs are sexually selected by a higher being, resulting in many rapid changes, but still no interspecies jump even with man's help. Still a canine just like their original ancestor.
Macro-evolution IS discredited, despite your denials. And no, transitional in the sense of intraspecies (which does exist) is not the same as a bridge between creature types, which is at the heart of macro-evolution fiction. There is no evidence that such a transition ever occurred, just the unsupported assumption that it did.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Pretending that all species are transitional is a stance that is not based in fact or evidence, which is exactly the point. This is not an exercise in saying that I have the answer and you don't. It's a statement that the current Darwin heavy dogma is wrong beyond the idea of micro evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 28, 2022 18:26:23 GMT
Problem is you need a "mechanism." "Miracle" could be a mechanism, but that's a whole lot of miracles happening...like a whole lot of the time. In addition to "natural selection" there is also "sexual selection," which would breed much faster changes than natural selection alone. But just saying "macro-evolution is discredited" is simply not true. Because it's not discredited. The tired line of "no transitional species" doesn't work either. They're all transitional. All the time. "Sexual selection" would cause faster changes, but it implies intelligent design rather than the slow, statistically challenged randomness of Darwin's hogwash. Dogs are sexually selected by a higher being, resulting in many rapid changes, but still no interspecies jump even with man's help. Still a canine just like their original ancestor.
Macro-evolution IS discredited, despite your denials. And no, transitional in the sense of intraspecies (which does exist) is not the same as a bridge between creature types, which is at the heart of macro-evolution fiction. There is no evidence that such a transition ever occurred, just the unsupported assumption that it did.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Pretending that all species are transitional is a stance that is not based in fact or evidence, which is exactly the point. This is not an exercise in saying that I have the answer and you don't. It's a statement that the current Darwin heavy dogma is wrong beyond the idea of micro evolution.
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles? |
|
