You know that it was only thought to be a transitionary fossil because they couldnt find the sternum which the wings connect to. Hence, they thought it couldnt fly. But wait! haha they found the sternum.
Sorry kid. Maybe actually try to know what you are talking about instead of reading off of some website
I found my sternum. But you know what? I can't fly. Archeopteryx has more features in common with dinosaurs than birds. So why call it a bird? Sorry, Kyle. Try reading the sciencientic literature, and not those YEC coloring books.
Wait, you have wings? Thats insane! You should probably turn yourself over for scientific study.
Why call it a bird? Cause it is one? lol. A professor at Yale, one of the world's most respected bird experts, even says its definitely a bird...?
They only thought it couldnt fly because they originally could not find the sternum to the bird. I already said all of this...? can you not read? or are you just retarded?
A sternum is the breast bone. All tetrapods have one. That includes birds and dinosaurs and humans. You're confusing it with the wishbone. Archeopteryx is called a bird out of posterity and because it had feathers. But new finds show that dinosaurs had feathers, too. So feathers weren't exclusive to birds. And archeopteryx had more in common with dinosaurs than birds. That's why it's an intermediate.
@Miceish Wow what a factual and uh intelligient response. Friend is your caretaker whiping the drool off of your face? I am not criticizing you for you unintelligibility I am pretty sure your an intelectual individual yet you are foolish because you choose not to reason darkened by your sins God loves you know matter how foolish you are and he laid himself down as a sacrifice for your sins! What's the point of all your "knowledge anyway" your life is pointless anyway right? WRONG you have a soul
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
blasphemy. how about this.. your god is a fag who touches little boys and then tells preist's to do the same. please tell me why would you stick up for a god you sends his only child to be mureded by men. ???? cunt
Nice little video, I am a firm believer in Evolution, though your arguments are neither solid in their logic nor supported by data that you in fact have, or have the education to interpret and present in a manner which would do it justice...
Learn to support your arguments and not only just make logical leaps form point A-B. This is what allows people to counter your argument. Simply saying something that make sense does not make it true. As you your self point out.......
IE: you have a particular video that talks about carbon dating and the use statistics to bias the findings. You mention that if you take only the failures and express those that it creates a false argument. This is true, the problem then created is that: A. you have neither helped create nor interpreted raw data on the subject (only 3rd party or further removed sources) and B. This type of statement is insulting to people with any intellect.
I didn't mention carbon dating in this video...if you are making an analogy, then could you provide specific examples in this video where I provided evidence that you felt was insufficient?
Since you like to debate Evolution so much why don't you debunk stevebee92653 videos where he attempt to refute evolution and prove Intelligent Design
Then we reach the biblical problems about the dinosaur to bird theroy. Birds came before the dinosaurs. Evolution teachs the exact opposite!!!!!!! Dinosaurs first birds second! How on earth does that work from a Biblical Perspective? How does this effect your idea on thestic evolution?
You then need to master the ability to fly and for wings to form, you need all the feathers to have evolved. You then need to explain how they mastered nest building.
You also have problems with migration. How birds even started to fly. Was it from the grund up or from the trees down?
You then need to find away to get hollow bones whether this be from some dinosaur to a theropod or a theropd to a bird! You still need to do it! It needed it to have happened at one point.
We then need to take into consideration the great design and precission of the bird feather, if we take a look at the bird feather and its design we can see that is is in to way similar to the scales of reptiles and there is no hard real evidence of any dinosaur that had feathers. Even the specimens we have that are suppost to have feathers can be explained away quite easily. Even if dinosaurs did have feathers this is no problem for creationism!
Then we need to take into consideration metabalim birds have a very fast metabalism rate, How do we know what the metabalism rate of theropods where? We don't! This is another problem with the idea that theropods gave rise to birds.
metabolism can be concluded from variety of sources. one is speed of growth which in endotherms is fast but in ectotherms slow.
It has been well established that dinosaurs grew quickly. Another point is insulation. We know that some theropod dinosaurs had feather covering. Such insulation is needed to keep the heat from escaping from small body which is problematic to small animals due to their body area body mass ratio.
In english lizard hipped. This is just a name. The pelvic structure of archaeopteryx is almost identical to dromaeosaurs.
tell me what are exactly the pelvic differences between theropod and bird.
The carbonized stain seen in stomach reagion of Sinosauropteryx holotype preserves no anatomical details. instead the bird like ventilation system is well established in theropod and also in sauropod dinosaurs.
that is true. However troodontids which are sister group of dromaeosaurs are known from jurassic extending the divergence time of dromaeosaurs back to jurassic.
We also have basal jurassic basal avialans now.
Epidexipteryx, Epidendrosaurus and Scansoriopteryx. There is also Pedopenaa whi ch might be mid jurassic deinonychosaur.
"Macroevolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups" (from the Microsoft Word Dictionary)
Speciation: "the (evolutionary) formation of new biological species, usually by one species that divides into two or more species that are genetically unique"
Well addressed. I found it pathetic how creationists believe there is only one specimen of Archaeopteryx. That just goes to show how much research they do on their own.
"speciation starts with for example a bacteria and ends with a bacteria" - thats taxonomy. evolution is when genetic frequency in a population changes over time. the formation of new forms isnt the primary purpus of evolution, its simply a possible pruduct depending on the avaidable conditions.
I don't care if it doesn't meet what your definition of macro-evolution is. It meets the normal, standard definition of macro-evolution. Speciation. Now go cry.
Your own definition maybe. Even the regular dictionary states "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."
Yes, indeed you can. Speciation is macro-evolution, and we regularly observe speciation. And can we observe the core of the earth directly? No? Is it still science then?
it is a struggle for evoltionists to find just a few "missing links" and even then they have to twist the evidence and fail miserably like with the extinct pig tooth for nebraska man...
LOLOLOL. The appeal to Nebraska man rears its ugly head. Nebraska man was a tooth. It was heavily disputed within the scientific community and gained no traction outside of the one who discovered it. A year later, the error was corrected by the very one who discovered it. I don't struggle for missing links. I'll hit you with fifty if you so please.
*it is a struggle for evoltionists to find just a few "missing links" and even then they have to twist the evidence and fail miserably like with the extinct pig tooth for nebraska man...*
I posted link where you can see the original description of Nebraska man.
Now show me where is the hoax? Where is the twisting of evidence?
Where is the outlandish reconstruction of nebraska man and it's family?
No, you didn't refute it. You simply voiced your disagreement. There was no refutation involved. As for Nebraska Man...lol. The scientist who discovered it was virtually alone in his proposition that it was a hominid. It was a popular journalist who constructed a picture out of it. This journalist was condemned by the scientist who discovered it. A year later, this same scientist discovered it was the tooth of a pig and refuted his own initial hypothesis. It's how science works.
The tooth was that of an extinct pig, and this tooth happens to bear a large resemblance to a human. This particular species of extinct pig had not been discovered yet.
What is this idiocy? We have several fossils which show intermediate features. Evolution is as testable as the theory that the Earth has a core. It's existence is implied through indirect lines of evidence.
"evolution is not a valid testable theory because we cannot test its process over a million years" - sure you can test it, most crimes go unseen but we can get convictions based on the testable evidence direct observation is only a part of science.
>>evidence for evolution would have to be >>millions of years worth of evolutionary >>creatures that cannot be classified...
Total shit. Not trying to be rude but what you have said here is total shit. Evolutionary theory is predicated upon a common ancestor and thus requires nested hierachies - the existence of these nested hierachies gaurantees that classifications can be made.
Nested hierarchies is THE tesable prediction of evolution. Find JUST ONE conterexample and evo is debunked.
"Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.1
UGH. Feduccia believes that birds evolved from archosaurs, and in this respect he disputes the scientific consensus. Nice way to quote mine. If you consider little quotes like that valid, I'll give you ten to the contrary.
"Feduccia believes that birds evolved from archosaurs, and in this respect he disputes the scientific consensus."
Birds are archosaurs. The problem is that he believes that birds diverged from dinosaurs before the evolution of sauropods or the first theropod. I find his belief in his thesis overtly dogmatic in the face of the evidence.
ID grants everything you said except that archeopteryx was a missing link... Archeopteryx was a created form with some reptillian and some bird-like features. Problem?
"ID grants everything you said except that archeopteryx was a missing link... Archeopteryx was a created form with some reptillian and some bird-like features. Problem?"
It would only be a problem if there was any valid, testable, evidence to back up ID. There is not. So we are left with what a observable fact. That provides the best explanation. Evolution.
I said evolution has been observed. Not archeopteryx. ID has not. ID has no supporting evidence. To take a unproven and unprovable Hypothesis and say was created as is not a problem. Because when you have a valid, observed theory It makes evolution the most likely explanation. So again, the ID explanation poses no problem. And until any evidence can be provided to make ID even seem plausible. It will not present a problem.
jsf3483: Can you demonstrate something that *COULD* be in the fossil record but that *COULD NOT* be supported by ID, but which *WOULD* support evolution?
To be a valid scientific theory, it must admit the *possibility* of evidence showing it to be wrong, while allowing for other theories to be correct.
ID claims the existence of an "intelligent agent" upon whom absolutely no limitations whatsoever are placed.
I.e., if a human gave birth to a giraffe which then gave birth to a shark and then somehow gave birth to the original human, ID does not contain any content in its claims that would say that there was anything wrong with that sequence.
That is to say, ID accepts archeopteryx as possible only the same sense that it thinks humans giving birth to giraffes is also possible.
Hey kabane, Do you think it is possible that these Intermediate fossils Could be the fossils of the weird things spoken about in Genesis 6:15 I think it is? Im just asking do you think it is possible?
Genesis 6:15, American KJV: "And this is the fashion which you shall make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."
I love when creationists try to refute Archaeopteryx by bringing up Protoavis. I wonder how they can laugh at the idea of Pildownman yet champion Protoavis, when it is completly surrounded by controversy and is most likely an invalid taxon?
I'm pretty sure the Archeopteryx isn't a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, but a separate branch in early bird formation. At least that's what I read
Yes. It is quite unlikely that the species of archaeopteryx in it's own has any living ancestors today. Simply because it was probably one of many species of avian dinosaurs, of which only a tiny fraction has ancestors today.
The main point that the existence of archeopteryx proves is that there is definitely a gradual intermediate between dinosaurs and birds, even when the archeopteryx is not the father of all modern birds
I think its because you're starting them too late when the show and tell room is taking up all the bandwidth (they have nearly 1,000 people in there!)
no man your foolish fooolish foolish foolish terrible speculation for an immoral ape lover!
ProphecyofNewLight 2 years ago
FUCK.
When I looked at you, I expected a soft voice. How old are you? You look eight!
Quetzacoatl2 2 years ago
Troubling to creationists? um...no, not at all.
You know that it was only thought to be a transitionary fossil because they couldnt find the sternum which the wings connect to. Hence, they thought it couldnt fly. But wait! haha they found the sternum.
Sorry kid. Maybe actually try to know what you are talking about instead of reading off of some website
kyleharper16 2 years ago
@kyleharper16
I found my sternum. But you know what? I can't fly. Archeopteryx has more features in common with dinosaurs than birds. So why call it a bird? Sorry, Kyle. Try reading the sciencientic literature, and not those YEC coloring books.
dudev 2 years ago
Wait, you have wings? Thats insane! You should probably turn yourself over for scientific study.
Why call it a bird? Cause it is one? lol. A professor at Yale, one of the world's most respected bird experts, even says its definitely a bird...?
They only thought it couldnt fly because they originally could not find the sternum to the bird. I already said all of this...? can you not read? or are you just retarded?
kyleharper16 2 years ago
A sternum is the breast bone. All tetrapods have one. That includes birds and dinosaurs and humans. You're confusing it with the wishbone. Archeopteryx is called a bird out of posterity and because it had feathers. But new finds show that dinosaurs had feathers, too. So feathers weren't exclusive to birds. And archeopteryx had more in common with dinosaurs than birds. That's why it's an intermediate.
dudev 2 years ago
BlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBlaBla you think ur so smart, lol fail.
Miceish 2 years ago
@Miceish Wow what a factual and uh intelligient response. Friend is your caretaker whiping the drool off of your face? I am not criticizing you for you unintelligibility I am pretty sure your an intelectual individual yet you are foolish because you choose not to reason darkened by your sins God loves you know matter how foolish you are and he laid himself down as a sacrifice for your sins! What's the point of all your "knowledge anyway" your life is pointless anyway right? WRONG you have a soul
ProphecyofNewLight 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
blasphemy. how about this.. your god is a fag who touches little boys and then tells preist's to do the same. please tell me why would you stick up for a god you sends his only child to be mureded by men. ???? cunt
MacNcheese666 3 years ago
Oh wow how impressive of you. Your only purpose is to offend, and you look like an immature little baby when you do. Blocked.
Kabane52 3 years ago
What do you think of the Tiktaalik fish to amphibian form? I have not heard any attempts to refute it, but i figured you had.
ptsheffer 3 years ago
Comment removed
ptsheffer 3 years ago
are you a homosexual?
cairdyboy7 3 years ago
I am. Are you interested?
8Dimensional 3 years ago 2
Nice little video, I am a firm believer in Evolution, though your arguments are neither solid in their logic nor supported by data that you in fact have, or have the education to interpret and present in a manner which would do it justice...
Learn to support your arguments and not only just make logical leaps form point A-B. This is what allows people to counter your argument. Simply saying something that make sense does not make it true. As you your self point out.......
devilontheloose 3 years ago
Why don't you actually give me specifics here...
Kabane52 3 years ago
Elaborate as to what specifics you wish to get?
IE: you have a particular video that talks about carbon dating and the use statistics to bias the findings. You mention that if you take only the failures and express those that it creates a false argument. This is true, the problem then created is that: A. you have neither helped create nor interpreted raw data on the subject (only 3rd party or further removed sources) and B. This type of statement is insulting to people with any intellect.
devilontheloose 3 years ago
I didn't mention carbon dating in this video...if you are making an analogy, then could you provide specific examples in this video where I provided evidence that you felt was insufficient?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I still say it was one of kind, like bats. We should just accept that dinosaurs and the archaeopteryx are gone.
CaptVelocity 3 years ago
Since you like to debate Evolution so much why don't you debunk stevebee92653 videos where he attempt to refute evolution and prove Intelligent Design
cumberland12345 3 years ago
One of the species found was actually mistaken for a dinosaur as its feathers weren't immediately apparent.
lowcomedy 3 years ago
what makes microsoft a non-prestigious source? (the fact that it ruins your position perhaps?)
jsf3483 3 years ago
Or perhaps the fact that the Microsoft Word Dictionary is not a scientific dictionary
Kabane52 3 years ago
would you accept websters? lol
jsf3483 3 years ago
It's not a scientific dictionary, but it's rather prestigious, so I guess.
Kabane52 3 years ago
lol
Timmortal94 3 years ago
i wasnt able to watch the video because it said it had a malformed id.
anyway though nebraska man was constructed from a single tooth. There is no way you can construct an entire organism from a single tooth.
jsf3483 3 years ago
Then we reach the biblical problems about the dinosaur to bird theroy. Birds came before the dinosaurs. Evolution teachs the exact opposite!!!!!!! Dinosaurs first birds second! How on earth does that work from a Biblical Perspective? How does this effect your idea on thestic evolution?
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
Nope...dinosaurs got there first, then birds.
Protoavis does not hold any water. It's chimeric specimen with poor preservation lacking any synapomorphies with bird.
In short it's more like faunal assembly rather than single animal.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
You then need to master the ability to fly and for wings to form, you need all the feathers to have evolved. You then need to explain how they mastered nest building.
You also have problems with migration. How birds even started to fly. Was it from the grund up or from the trees down?
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
*Was it from the grund up or from the trees down?
False dichotomy long abandoned by most theropod/bird researchers.
Theres number of advances to grow long feathers to forelimbs. Incubating eggs,display purposes, steering during running, gliding...
DerivedApe 3 years ago
You then need to find away to get hollow bones whether this be from some dinosaur to a theropod or a theropd to a bird! You still need to do it! It needed it to have happened at one point.
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
Theropods did have hollow bones.
Go check what the name Coelurosauria means.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
"Theropods did have hollow bones.
Go check what the name Coelurosauria means."
The theropods themseleves would need to have some point obtained hollow bones, any evidence for this?
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
yes there is good gradual pneumatisation of the bones of theropods.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
We then need to take into consideration the great design and precission of the bird feather, if we take a look at the bird feather and its design we can see that is is in to way similar to the scales of reptiles and there is no hard real evidence of any dinosaur that had feathers. Even the specimens we have that are suppost to have feathers can be explained away quite easily. Even if dinosaurs did have feathers this is no problem for creationism!
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
I'm all ears. please explain away the fethered dinosaurs including Velociraptor.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
still waiting...
DerivedApe 3 years ago
aaand still waiting...
DerivedApe 3 years ago
Then we need to take into consideration metabalim birds have a very fast metabalism rate, How do we know what the metabalism rate of theropods where? We don't! This is another problem with the idea that theropods gave rise to birds.
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
metabolism can be concluded from variety of sources. one is speed of growth which in endotherms is fast but in ectotherms slow.
It has been well established that dinosaurs grew quickly. Another point is insulation. We know that some theropod dinosaurs had feather covering. Such insulation is needed to keep the heat from escaping from small body which is problematic to small animals due to their body area body mass ratio.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
"Another point is insulation. We know that some theropod dinosaurs had feather covering." Oh really!!!! lol Examples?
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
Avimimus,Sinosauropteryx,Protarchaeopteryx,
Caudipteryx,Rahonavis,Shuvuuia,Sinornithosaurus
Beipiaosaurus,Microraptor,Nomingia
Epidendrosaurus,Cryptovolans,Scansoriopteryx
Yixianosaurus,Dilong,Pedopenna,Jinfengopteryx
Sinocalliopteryx,Velociraptor,Epidexipteryx
DerivedApe 3 years ago
I can provide peer review paper citations for each of them if needed.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
Some points that are worth considering:
Sauropod dinosaurs are bird hipped dinosaurs!!
Many theropods where lizard hipped! You need to get from this hip to a bird hip.
Then we have the lung problem. When they looked at Sinosauropteryxs fossil outline it showed it had bellowslike lungs not like the lungs of a bird!
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
Sauropod like theropods belonged to Saurischia.
In english lizard hipped. This is just a name. The pelvic structure of archaeopteryx is almost identical to dromaeosaurs.
tell me what are exactly the pelvic differences between theropod and bird.
The carbonized stain seen in stomach reagion of Sinosauropteryx holotype preserves no anatomical details. instead the bird like ventilation system is well established in theropod and also in sauropod dinosaurs.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
"archaeopteryx is almost identical to dromaeosaurs." Dromeosaurs where long after Arcahopteryx, not before.
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
that is true. However troodontids which are sister group of dromaeosaurs are known from jurassic extending the divergence time of dromaeosaurs back to jurassic.
We also have basal jurassic basal avialans now.
Epidexipteryx, Epidendrosaurus and Scansoriopteryx. There is also Pedopenaa whi ch might be mid jurassic deinonychosaur.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
How can there be any doubt? the link is clear clear clear!
Evolution is fact fact fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks
ShalomYal 3 years ago
It is not troubling to me at all! Archaeopteryx was a bird and flying and perching one at that.
There is more than just bone structure you need to consider when thinking about the evolution of lizard hipped theropods to birds.
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
Was not perching. Perching requires fully reversed hallux which Archaeopteryx lacks.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
It perhed I am telling you.
Andrewkinghorn15 3 years ago
Mayr G, Pohl B, Peters DS. A Well-Preserved Archaeopteryx Specimen with Theropod Features. Science. 2005;310(5753):1483-1486.
quote from the abstract:
"Archaeopteryx had a plesiomorphic tetraradiate palatine bone and no fully reversed first toe."
DerivedApe 3 years ago
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
nothing to cry about there lol
jsf3483 3 years ago
From these definitions we see that speciation is limited to developing new species alone.
Macroevolution is much broader and has not been observed.
jsf3483 3 years ago
From the Microsoft Word Dictionary:
"Macroevolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups" (from the Microsoft Word Dictionary)
Speciation: "the (evolutionary) formation of new biological species, usually by one species that divides into two or more species that are genetically unique"
jsf3483 3 years ago
Unfortunately, Microsoft Word dictionary is not a very prestigious source. You'll need a scientific source.
Kabane52 3 years ago
next time you do a stickam session, please do it at night man between 11-1 am EST
Theologica37 3 years ago
I bet you your next video will start with.... Hello everybody this is Kabane52......
anyway....
lol
Timmortal94 3 years ago
Well addressed. I found it pathetic how creationists believe there is only one specimen of Archaeopteryx. That just goes to show how much research they do on their own.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
What are you doing for New years eve tonight?
Christus94 3 years ago
Excellent, excellent video. 5 stars, dude.
UnionKid15 3 years ago
speciation starts with for example a bacteria and ends with a bacteria...i see no macroevolution
jsf3483 3 years ago
theres no difference between micro and macro at the genetic level. the terms macro and micro are simply references, there not 2 seperate processes.
Elcristoph 3 years ago
"speciation starts with for example a bacteria and ends with a bacteria" - thats taxonomy. evolution is when genetic frequency in a population changes over time. the formation of new forms isnt the primary purpus of evolution, its simply a possible pruduct depending on the avaidable conditions.
Elcristoph 3 years ago
I don't care if it doesn't meet what your definition of macro-evolution is. It meets the normal, standard definition of macro-evolution. Speciation. Now go cry.
Kabane52 3 years ago
macroevolution is supposed to occur over a long period of time while speciation occurs in a short period of time...
that is just one way it is not the same...
pwned again
jsf3483 3 years ago
Lol @ ignorance.
guugolpl0x 3 years ago
No, you are simply incorrect. Macro evolution is evolution at or above the species level. Denying facts won't get you everywhere.
Go cry.
Kabane52 3 years ago
no im not incorrect.
the definition of macroevolution states it occurs over a long period of time.
speciation does not. it occurs over a short period of time and is consistent with the ID theory.
macroevolution has not been observed.
jsf3483 3 years ago
Your own definition maybe. Even the regular dictionary states "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."
jeremebp 3 years ago
>>the definition of macroevolution states it >>occurs over a long period of time.
Cite just one peer-reviewed paper that uses this definition.
themadhair 3 years ago
really you can observe macroevolution today?
jsf3483 3 years ago
Yes, indeed you can. Speciation is macro-evolution, and we regularly observe speciation. And can we observe the core of the earth directly? No? Is it still science then?
Kabane52 3 years ago
really? fifty?
jsf3483 3 years ago
Yep. Fifty.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Why limit yourself to Archaeopteryx? I find feathered flightless theropods more interesting. Of course, thats just my opinion.
noobapple 3 years ago
I'll do one better I'll provide hundred easily.
Heck let's say 200.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
it is a struggle for evoltionists to find just a few "missing links" and even then they have to twist the evidence and fail miserably like with the extinct pig tooth for nebraska man...
just sad
jsf3483 3 years ago
LOLOLOL. The appeal to Nebraska man rears its ugly head. Nebraska man was a tooth. It was heavily disputed within the scientific community and gained no traction outside of the one who discovered it. A year later, the error was corrected by the very one who discovered it. I don't struggle for missing links. I'll hit you with fifty if you so please.
Kabane52 3 years ago
sry...I posted wrong url. Here is the right one:
tiny(DOT)cc/WFKH9
DerivedApe 3 years ago
Theres the original paper describing Hesperopithecus aka nebraska man.
Now show me where is the hoax? Where is the twisting of evidence?
Where is the outlandish reconstruction of nebraska man and it's family?
Show me that it's deliberate hoax rather than
misinterpertation of fragmentary data.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
You have asserted something. surely you can defend your lies.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
I asserted something???...hmph
Kabane was the one who asserted that macroevolution and speciation are the same thing.
"Speciation is macro-evolution, and we regularly observe speciation."
I merely refuted that statement.
jsf3483 3 years ago
you said:
*it is a struggle for evoltionists to find just a few "missing links" and even then they have to twist the evidence and fail miserably like with the extinct pig tooth for nebraska man...*
I posted link where you can see the original description of Nebraska man.
Now show me where is the hoax? Where is the twisting of evidence?
Where is the outlandish reconstruction of nebraska man and it's family?
Show me that it's deliberate hoax rather than
misinterpertation of fragmentary data.
DerivedApe 3 years ago
No, you didn't refute it. You simply voiced your disagreement. There was no refutation involved. As for Nebraska Man...lol. The scientist who discovered it was virtually alone in his proposition that it was a hominid. It was a popular journalist who constructed a picture out of it. This journalist was condemned by the scientist who discovered it. A year later, this same scientist discovered it was the tooth of a pig and refuted his own initial hypothesis. It's how science works.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Lol some evolutionist scientist he was...
couldn't tell it was a pig tooth
jsf3483 3 years ago
...
The tooth was that of an extinct pig, and this tooth happens to bear a large resemblance to a human. This particular species of extinct pig had not been discovered yet.
You are a bit dim, aren't you?
Kabane52 3 years ago
in the fossil record we find fossils of creatures clearly defined in kingdoms...
evidence for evolution would have to be millions of years worth of evolutionary creatures that cannot be classified...
there is not...
evolution is not a valid testable theory because we cannot test its process over a million years
jsf3483 3 years ago
What is this idiocy? We have several fossils which show intermediate features. Evolution is as testable as the theory that the Earth has a core. It's existence is implied through indirect lines of evidence.
Kabane52 3 years ago
"evolution is not a valid testable theory because we cannot test its process over a million years" - sure you can test it, most crimes go unseen but we can get convictions based on the testable evidence direct observation is only a part of science.
Elcristoph 3 years ago
>>evidence for evolution would have to be >>millions of years worth of evolutionary >>creatures that cannot be classified...
Total shit. Not trying to be rude but what you have said here is total shit. Evolutionary theory is predicated upon a common ancestor and thus requires nested hierachies - the existence of these nested hierachies gaurantees that classifications can be made.
Nested hierarchies is THE tesable prediction of evolution. Find JUST ONE conterexample and evo is debunked.
themadhair 3 years ago
watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
This is what the Theory of Evolution ACTUALLY says. Watch, learn, then try and refute that. Don't engage in this strawman genocide.
hanzo138 3 years ago
"Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.1
jsf3483 3 years ago
UGH. Feduccia believes that birds evolved from archosaurs, and in this respect he disputes the scientific consensus. Nice way to quote mine. If you consider little quotes like that valid, I'll give you ten to the contrary.
Kabane52 3 years ago
"Feduccia believes that birds evolved from archosaurs, and in this respect he disputes the scientific consensus."
Birds are archosaurs. The problem is that he believes that birds diverged from dinosaurs before the evolution of sauropods or the first theropod. I find his belief in his thesis overtly dogmatic in the face of the evidence.
noobapple 3 years ago
My mistake. I was speaking from memory.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Good vid. Pictures of archeoptryx fossils pointing out said features would have added to the quality of the video.
NotWhollySane 3 years ago
Sure, but it's ad hoc and makes little sense.
Kabane52 3 years ago
ID grants everything you said except that archeopteryx was a missing link... Archeopteryx was a created form with some reptillian and some bird-like features. Problem?
jsf3483 3 years ago
"ID grants everything you said except that archeopteryx was a missing link... Archeopteryx was a created form with some reptillian and some bird-like features. Problem?"
It would only be a problem if there was any valid, testable, evidence to back up ID. There is not. So we are left with what a observable fact. That provides the best explanation. Evolution.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago 2
The observable fact is that it has both reptillian and birdlike features. you say it's from evolution and I say from ID...
jsf3483 3 years ago
The transitional features that Archeopteryx has is a confirmed prediction of evolution. I see no reason as to why it should be a prediction of ID.
StutteringDave 3 years ago
I said evolution has been observed. Not archeopteryx. ID has not. ID has no supporting evidence. To take a unproven and unprovable Hypothesis and say was created as is not a problem. Because when you have a valid, observed theory It makes evolution the most likely explanation. So again, the ID explanation poses no problem. And until any evidence can be provided to make ID even seem plausible. It will not present a problem.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
jsf3483: Can you demonstrate something that *COULD* be in the fossil record but that *COULD NOT* be supported by ID, but which *WOULD* support evolution?
To be a valid scientific theory, it must admit the *possibility* of evidence showing it to be wrong, while allowing for other theories to be correct.
websnarf 3 years ago
ID claims the existence of an "intelligent agent" upon whom absolutely no limitations whatsoever are placed.
I.e., if a human gave birth to a giraffe which then gave birth to a shark and then somehow gave birth to the original human, ID does not contain any content in its claims that would say that there was anything wrong with that sequence.
That is to say, ID accepts archeopteryx as possible only the same sense that it thinks humans giving birth to giraffes is also possible.
websnarf 3 years ago
Hey kabane, Do you think it is possible that these Intermediate fossils Could be the fossils of the weird things spoken about in Genesis 6:15 I think it is? Im just asking do you think it is possible?
Val3y 3 years ago
Genesis 6:15, American KJV: "And this is the fashion which you shall make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."
So I think the answer is "no".
garouHH 3 years ago
I love when creationists try to refute Archaeopteryx by bringing up Protoavis. I wonder how they can laugh at the idea of Pildownman yet champion Protoavis, when it is completly surrounded by controversy and is most likely an invalid taxon?
hanzo138 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure the Archeopteryx isn't a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, but a separate branch in early bird formation. At least that's what I read
darthrender2010 3 years ago
"but a separate branch in early bird formation"
1) That depends on who you read
2) Even if my homeboy Archaeopteryx didn't give rise to modern birds it is still a transitional species by definition.
hanzo138 3 years ago
Yes. It is quite unlikely that the species of archaeopteryx in it's own has any living ancestors today. Simply because it was probably one of many species of avian dinosaurs, of which only a tiny fraction has ancestors today.
The main
zweefvlieg 3 years ago
Whoops... I'm drunk... don't judge me!
The main point that the existence of archeopteryx proves is that there is definitely a gradual intermediate between dinosaurs and birds, even when the archeopteryx is not the father of all modern birds
zweefvlieg 3 years ago
Good video, but I would put the endorsement stuff at the end. It made me want to click elsewhere
intelligentfalling 3 years ago 2
Why should it be troubling when they can just ignore it.
But a great video all the same. 5/5
TehBestZors 3 years ago
when's your next stickam session? You DID say that stickam was coming this week, or are you some dishonest politician.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Okay, okay. I will have a stickam session tomorrow. I'm just incredibly ticked at the constant crashes.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I think its because you're starting them too late when the show and tell room is taking up all the bandwidth (they have nearly 1,000 people in there!)
migkillertwo 3 years ago