@pppaaaooo13 That is because you are stupid and uneducated. If you know why these fossils were important you would know they were transitional fossils. You don't even know what a transitional fissils is.
Many of what you listed is a total joke. The only real sequential fossils we have are in the burgess shale and chengang. If you were to find a marsupial tasmanian wolf, and a common placental wolf, long gone in the fossil record, a Darwinian commitment would force you to see one as the morphological antecedent to the other. Though we know these two anatomically similar creatures have nothing to do with each other today.
During the last century fossils have been discovered which represent prehistoric forms closely related to man's ancestors, fossils with names of Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo habilis and others, all of which surely were bipedal with an upright stance. But if they possessed the other characteristics of man is uncertain, as it cannot be seen from fossilised bones if the being was able to speak and think, or what kind of life it lived.
DNA can be trusted, it's the liars that put words in its and everybody's mouth that can't be trusted. How did DNA evolve? And the base assertion that DNA is proof that everything is related, what makes you think that fantasy is true?
These no way I can educate you in 500 characters, you basically claiming that dna is a fantasy because you dont understand it. Now thats pretty stupid..
Anyone go read a book, and think about this, if dna doesnt change, then why is it that your dna isnt the same as your parents, you sister, your bother...
That's what I thought. You make a bold assertion and then when I ask you to elaborate you tell me to read a book and add ad hominem because that's all you've got. If it weren't for ad hominem evlutionists couldn't come with anything but the mantra: it IS a fact, it IS a fact. But ask them to back up any of the bold assertions and they get weal mad. If there were truth behind the assertions the facts would be there to backup the claims. It seems that your theory just dissolves into thin air.
DNA is more proof of God than any pseudoscientific theory that still swings in the breeze waiting for the real evidence. It shows the design in humanity, and that there was obviously a designer, to someone who's not terrified of that concept to the point of constructing walls of denial and pseudoscience in its place.
intelligence is defined as taking in information from your environment, processing it and reacting to it accordingly. Reactive properties are something materials possess, meaning if god is intelligent he must also be material. Material objects cannot form into complex shapes spontaneously, meaning he must have either gradually formed without intelligent intervention or have been created himself. But that just leads to the question of where his creator came from or how he formed on his own.
Why do you automatically assume life needs a designer? Most complex structures are created through trial and error processes, with less efficient variants being discarded and more complex ones being worked off of. Bio-molecules are capable of creating things without intelligence, producing variation without intelligence and selecting for more efficient shapes without intelligence. All real intelligence does is speed things up.
It doesn't matter. That fact is that DNA does evolve is what is important in the theory of evolution. But for your information DNA evolved from RNA. What did RNA evolve from? earlier simpler versions.
"And the base assertion that DNA is proof that everything is related"
DNA is not proof, but contains the proof. There are things called markers in DNA. Things that have no function which appear in related species. They are caused by copying mistakes and viruses and get passed on through each generation and as species diverge the emergent species still contain the evidence. That is where the proof is.
Huh? Proven partially-formed features? Where? Did you send a copy of that to Dr. Duane Gish and get him to help you publish it? Now, what science DOES show us, is that every feature of every animal on earth is fully developed and used by the creature. You comic book version of reality is in your mind.
lol, again a stupid vid. Just putting some bones next to each other. LOL. You can't prove anything with this, only if we can investegate them alive. XD You are stupid, sorry.:(
There's no such thing as a transitional fossil. If evolution were true, TF would outnumber fully-formed animals, even living today, by billions-to-one. And yet, there are no transitionals - no partially developed or transient features in any animal, living or in fossil. Read this article I wrote recently which illuminates the latest evolutionist hoaxed "transitional" form:
You really don't learn anything do you? I proved there were numerous partially formed features, by any standard, yet you still make that claim. So do you still think a flatworm eye is as fully formed as a human eye? I see you're also going on about this evolutionist conspiracy to undermine God. It's funny, the only way you can account for the lack of evidence for your side is to claim a conspiracy, despite lack of evidence and motive.
This moron mentions afrenthesis and others which have been proven either hoaxes or fully formed apes or ancient humans. Somebody has not done their homewordk. Instead, they have listened doe-eyed to evolutionist brainwashing and lies. Hey kid, watch my pocket watch swing... repeat after me... "Evolution, evolution, evolution..." LOL
Hmm, no, got to go with Jan and vote for 'The missing link' being the ID's biggest lie.
Especially since they want to have Evolution as a synonym to Darwinism, and Darwin himself claimed that if these formes could not be found, his theory is in trouble, They get a hardone reading that.
How i whish they could understand that every lifeform is a transitional form.
as usual they wont stand the test of time! Neandertal is now just human..lucy is an ape..NONE stand the test of time...frauds abound..misinterpretations etc etc.. just google "fake fossils business china"... they get HUGE money for these fake fossils ya know??..
What! Define 'very different', please. Or give your references. Which 'part of a neanderthal genome' was sequenced, anyway? Is this just mitochondrial?
@Curi0uss0uL if you go into this thinking "nope, there just frauds" then you admit willful ignorance. neaderthal is not human, its DNA was sampled and it was not homo sapien
kabane!! have you got an answer to my post "ok just pick your most compelling ape-man fossil for me to investigate that would help thanks! and ya know the way apes cant straighten their knees..how do explain that one then??
ok just pick one ape-man fossil for me to investigate that would help thanks! and ya know the way apes cant straighten their knees..how do explain that one then??
No humans arent apes. We both share a common ancestry from ape like mammals but humans are humans and apes are apes. You finally have an actual reason to say I denied something you wrote.
YAAAAAAAAAY!
But you're right this was a waste of time. I ask questions. You hurl nonresponsive UNFOUNDED accusations. The funny thing is you think I was debating you. Peaceout
That never fails to sound idtiotic: humans are apes. Maybe evolutionists were created by nothing and came from apes, fine have fun being immoral because you're just animals.
We were created by God and came from dust, and none of the garbage you come up with makes ANY sense EXCEPT to an ape. If it makes you happy then be an ape. God gave us dominion over the animals because we are higher than the animals. Get your head out of your monkey butts!
"A primate (L. prima, first) is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans."
Everything relates us to animals, and anything that looks alike must have evolved one into the other, and every fossil is a transitional; is there anything that you don't see as proof of evolution? Dogma has bewildered your wits.
Are you saying humans are not apes? Next thing you know you wont want humans to be called mammals, vertebrates, Multicellular organism etc etc.. your argument that you have read from a creationist website has already been refuted over and over.
@ricaleigh007 yeh, just like serving the "lord" was what the person who classified us as apes was doing, since he was a theist creationist. why does admitting that we are apes (look up the definition of ape) and that the evidence for evolution is beyond reasonable doubt? if you want to learn more about evolution, please, personal message me
@ricaleigh007 you and your family will serve a fake fairytale monster... ok.. i guess if you enjoy wasting your time, thats cool, just keep it out of our schools and govt.
As far as i am aware all the so called ape-man skulls have been shown to be either ape or human, right? and as for the 'dino to birds' fossils.. they are all from china where there is a fake fossil business, they get more money for full fossils so they carefully construct them and sell them to gullible evolutionists....
No... Creationists themselves debate among themselves over whether this or that skull is fully ape or fully human, Dino to bird fossils are in China. Because dinosaurs evolved in China.
Then your awareness is incomplete. Do you really think that anyone could create a 'fake fossil' that would fool a modern paleontologist? A century ago, maybe; but not now.
1999 Dr. Currie an evolutionist had this to say about Archaeoraptor...
"Archaeoraptor is remarkably significant . . . it's no longer just a bird, it's clearly a dinosaur. It has that combination that truly makes this a missing link . . . so many deny there is [sic] such things. Well, this clearly is a missing link and it's one that unites dinosaurs to birds" (emp. added, JJ).
There was no doubt, no caution -- only 100% arrogant assertion. The evols see what thye wnat to see...later when it was discovered to be a fake he said
"Well, at that time, the best evidence we had was that the tail did belong, and we had pretty well >>convinced ourselves<< that it did.
How many other measurements have been taken of various teeth and bones that "prove" evolution, but are merely the result of frenzied excitement?
For heavensake get a grip. Archaeoraptor fooled a few people - for a MONTH! The only reason it got as far as it did was that both the species used to make it up were previously unknown. Despite that, palaeontologists were onto it in days after it went public.
If this one petty hoax is grounds, in your eyes, to blow off all fossil data, you need mind-opening surgery.
one hoax? are you serious?..anyhow...i was just answering your question..you asked "Do you really think that anyone could create a 'fake fossil' that would fool a modern paleontologist? A century ago, maybe; but not now. "
well that was 1999...These evolutionists are fallible ..only human i know..but some people put all there trust in them...
In any case what does a fossil prove? a evolutionist would probably look at 2 brothers who looked alike and conclude 1 evolved from the other....
Thats only if you believe if all animals share a source organism. Why couldnt these animals have simply died and new completely unconnected but similar ones developed?
Lets see. 99% of all life on earth died. Are you implying that at some point there were 100 times as many species on earth, all only having slight variations between them, and they just hapened to die out in the particluar order to make it seem as if they are transitional? That's simply ridiculous and illogical.
Actually the only thing thats ridiculous and illogical is to exclude any possiblility especially on a subject you have and could never witness. Fossils are a rarity not empirical proof. Or are you saying you witnessed a dinosaur turn into a bird? You can keep your insults. You evolution zealots sound no different than theists with their "god made everything" explination.
It is an impossibility for what I mentioned to happen. Fossils may not be empiricle, but no single peice of evidence is. But the fossil record is one of the strongest peices of evidence for evolution. The "were you there" defense has got to be the lamest thing ever. If you saw a man standing of a dead body, holding a knife that was still in the victim, covered in blood, and there was DNA evidence, would you let him off on reasonable doubt because you weren't there?
The "were you there" is what seperates truth from fiction. You cant use circumstantial evidence to "prove" anything. Thats why evolution will always be a theory and not a law. But thanks for that "lame" analogy watch how simply I crush it. ~cont~
The were you there defense is actually pathetic. And FYI, it doesn't matter if people observe a monkey giving birth to a human or not, evolution will never be a law. I don't think you understand the meaning of the words. A scientific theory is the best explanation based on the evidence that goes along with the laws.
You walk in your house your wife is screaming on the floor covered in blood with a knife stuck in her so deep its pinning her to the floor. Not even hours before you had sex with her and she scratches hard sometimes breaking the skin. Hysterical you start to grab the knife to rush her to the hospital you didnt even close the door and your neighbor walks by now you're in the same situation you described. Your wife dies before she can talk. Should you go to jail?
That only works if the victim and person found have a personal relationship. If they have no relationshyip your defense falls apart. If the time of death was placed at 6 hours, you saying he walked in and saw it no longer works. Your entire defense to my hypothetical situation relies on you putting in more information.
Because that would require way more evolution than Darwin or any scientist has ever proposed. Way too much over too short a time period. It's physically impossible, unless you want to say life is the product of a million times more evolution than anyone has ever said.
So what if no scientist ever proposed it? Darwins theories werent proposed by anyone before were they?Millions of years is too short of a time period? Why would life forms stop evolving? Why is it "impossible"?
Darwin's theories were thought of before. His were simply the best ones. He also came up with Natural Selection, which was the missing mechanism in evolution.
Natural selection is not the mechanism to make some thing evolve its simply survival of the fittest creature. There is no mechanism to explain the necessary mutations for evolution to be a law. Period.
It's called natural selection. And it doesn't cause mutations. It allows animals with beneficial mutations to survive better.
Example: Say that the oxygen levels on earth drop for whatever reason. If there is an organism that has a mutation that allows him to use oxygen more efficiently, he will survive better than others, reproduce more, and pass on that mutation to his offspring.
I thought you were a young earth dude. The diversification we observe can't possibly conform with the claims of the bible, that's all I meant. It still doesn't make any sense, but time isn't the problem if you can accept a 4 billion year old earth. Biologically, it's clear we stem from the same tree. Call it the universe, call it God, but a seperate tree for each kind of animal doesn't make sense given our observations. Perhaps you meant nothing of the sort, and I'm full of shit.
No you've got it right. But to me it seems more feasible for MOST species to have developed seperately, even if they look similar, as opposed to all life branching from the same type of organism. The possibility that some unknown stimulus produced varient 'positive' mutations on the same organism is very slim. But the same stimulus acting on different organisms makes more sense. At least to me anyway. lol
So it's most reasonable to you that every species developed seperately, even though looking at genetics and the fossil record it shows thier development? What you want is simply not possible.
LOL my bad I just realized your a kid. Wait till you get to college and are exposed to a less generlized version of the sciences and maybe your eyes will open to how many viable possibilities for the development of life on earth. Who knows maybe you could discover how evolution "really" works. Peaceout
I can't possibly write down the scietifif process properly with a 500 character limit. And just so you know, that is how a theory works in science. YOu clearly didn't make much use of your college "education".
Ahhhh of course we just havn't been told the whole story about evolution! I guess that's why a mere 99.85% of scientists in Earth and life sciences believe in evolution?
99.85% of what kind of scientists? Where did you get that stat? But what does that matter? There are billions of people who believe the earth and the universe were made by a singular cosmic being. One whom you can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch. Should we acept that as fact as well?
Whether there is a god is irrelevant to biological evolution being true, in fact many people believe in both. You said people who believe in evolution aren't getting the full story. Are those 99.85% of scientists who've been studying these things their whole lives, and seeing the evidence first hand, not getting the full story?
If a "god" exists and created life that is completely relevant to biological evolution.
uhh you're the only one who said anything about a full story. And that 99.85% is your number as well. But 99.85% of scientists dont study evolution their whole lives. Biology is only a branch of science. And the evidence they see is the same we see when they publish their findings.
Everyone who uses science is a scientist. SOME have specialized fields of study. That qualify their opinions and findings over others but that doesnt make your personal or untested theory invalid. Not to mention some have been caught lying to prove there hypotheses.
There is no "stimulus" to produce these positive mutations. Out of every group of mutations a few of them will be positive. Those that aren't die off and those that are survive to pass on their
Please explain to me how its even remotely possible to mutate the gentic code for an eye or a toungue? Theses are organs with specific purposes there is no reason for the organs to exist other than what we use them for. These types of "mutations" can be forced with advanced gene manipulation. But naturally? That's a huge stretch.
The eye has been explained many times over. Once something's in place all it needs is gradual change to make it more and more complex. The eye in its simplest form today is nothing more than a few light sensitive cells. The tongue can do the same. All you need is some sort of muscle to manipulate food and it's sitting back and waiting from then.
So you cant is what you're saying? I've never talked with you before so you've never explained the eye to me. Light sensitive how? Photons or radiation? I know what a tongue is but why is it is the question?
If you want to find out more do some research. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to someone who's just going to ignore it and tell me I'm wrong no matter what I say. I explained how these organs can get started and all you need to do there is wait for mutation and natural selection to refine it.
Oh YOU'VE published work? Well since I was asking YOUR opinion point me to YOUR research and I'll look over that. Its funny how you think I've ignored what you've said just because I asked questions about it. But I'll take this hostility as a sign that you CANT answer as opposed to wont. Sorry for "wasting your time". Peace
Oh I'm sorry I guess you're a paleontologist, biologist, chemist, geneticist, geologist who's seen every piece of evidence first hand and done detailed studies on all of them to bring you to the conclusion that evolution doesn't exist. Almost every creationist I have debated has ignored or simply denied the validity of every piece of evidence I've given.
Your reactions to mutations and transitional fossils don't show you to be any different. If you're really going to listen to evidence and not just deny it then I'll be happy to give you a proper debate.
cont. Genes. We have observed dramatic variation coming from populations that stemed from a single individual. We have observed variation and evolution about as fast as we can in the time we've observed it, what stops that variation and evolution continuing?
You have observed different species developing from one root species? What might those be? I dont think life ever stops changing. Our lifespans are infinitesimal when compared to the planets. But we are on the verge of being able to force evolution. So we can make it happen.
I'm not sure if they actually reached the different species mark but there was variation in populations in bacteria decended from a single individual. These experiments are not controlled by any forces other than what nature would allow.
If mutations didnt spawn new species then how is your original statement relevant? Evolution is used to explain the varient forms of life on earth. To assume that mutations that dont kill an organism somehow develop into viable organelles is speculation at best.
When did I ever say mutations don't spawn a new species? Mutations only kill an organism if the changes are so great that the species simply can't survive or two complementary bases are deleted, causing cancer. Organelles most likely came from whole other organisms themselves, hence the similarity between them and bacteria. Countless benificial mutations have been observed. To say they havn't or can't is either ignorance or out right denial.
They're both untrue: each beneficial mutation is a lottery win - rare, but it happens. Evolution keeps the winnings each time, because it has millions of years to play with. Over time, the wins accumulate, piece by tiny piece. A new useful protein once a century is enough to make a whole new critter eventually.
The bad mutations just die; the good ones multiply. Evolution is simply a fact. Get over it.
More confusion - there is no 'mechanism to trigger evoltion' toward any goal. It doesn't work that way. Genes change, and if they're useful, they're conserved.
I already know there is no mechanism to trigger the necessary mutations to explain the complexity of life. Which is why I'm not slavishly promoting any one version of evolution and why I'll always remain skeptical toward any process that cannot be empirically proven. I think its really presumptuous to claim random mutations cause complex organs when we cant even show they create simple organelles.
You must ask yourself why, if mutations can cause beneficial, novel proteins at all, there should be any limit. Each new beneficial mutation accumulates, and if it takes a thousand years for each change, and it takes a thousand mutations for a new organ, then you'll get one every million years.
Again I've yet to see or even be told about one beneficial mutation. So to simply assume that the exist is speculation and belief. And not science. You cant claim an untested or observed hypothesis as fact. Period. I know life evolved but it is the how I question. With a better understanding of gene manipulation we can force evolution but then WE would be the mechanism that is NECESSARY imo for the complexity most try to pass off as a natural occurence.
NO beneficial mutations? Eric Hovind said that to me today. IT was really silly, seeing as how his flood model not only need speciation, but he also needs it to be incredibly rapid. He depends on beneficial mutations. I'll give you examples: born without wisdom teeth, a more efficient metabolism, some people are capable of producing cancer-fighting chemicals within their body (very rare, but clearly beneficial), denser muscle mass, etc. Denying beneficial mutations just seems silly to me.
Where did I deny them? How is being born with no wisdom teeth advantageous? Not everyone needs to have them removed. Metabolic rates differ from person to person and slow as we age. What is the "mutation" that controls this? What chemicals are produced, from what organ and where can I find info on this? Beneficial to whom if the person never develops cancer what effect do those chemicals have? Who has a noticibly denser muscle mass?
Being born with no wisdom teeth is advantageous because you are immune to impacting. In the wild they would eat more, live longer, and reproduce more.
The chemicals are anticarcinogens. They aren't produced by any specific organ. The genes remain active in all cells. Any good scientific resource should have the info.
If the person never develops cancer, it will be passed on to their descendants. You end up with a family bloodline that can survive some of the most dangerous cancers with little or no treatment. Without cancer, it is neutral.
The muscle mass is too common and isn't revolutionary enough to list specific people. However, genes for muscle production are found. While excersise is still necessary, with the same time spent, more muscle is built.
Mutations, neutral, harmful and beneficial, have been observed. There is no mechanism to specifically cause beneficial mutations. There is, however, a mechanism that can thin out populations of bad mutations, and preserve and spread the good: natural selection.
Evolution can be observed in bacteria because a) they have very short generations, b) having one cell, DNA damage always affects their offspring, and c) they have conjugation, which spreads a new gene to the whole colony in hours.
Bigger animals just take more time - more, unfortunately, than laboratories have been around.
6 IDiots don't like the fact that there are transitional fossils.
gregrutz 6 months ago
Like I said no transitional fossils.
glendaweil 7 months ago
I didnt understand a shit.Why these are transitional fossils?
pppaaaooo13 1 year ago
@pppaaaooo13 That is because you are stupid and uneducated. If you know why these fossils were important you would know they were transitional fossils. You don't even know what a transitional fissils is.
gregrutz 6 months ago
I have news for you... EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL
apeek7 1 year ago
Many of what you listed is a total joke. The only real sequential fossils we have are in the burgess shale and chengang. If you were to find a marsupial tasmanian wolf, and a common placental wolf, long gone in the fossil record, a Darwinian commitment would force you to see one as the morphological antecedent to the other. Though we know these two anatomically similar creatures have nothing to do with each other today.
JEFFSCOTTK1 4 years ago
what i would like to see is one be one the ape to humen not just 1 2 3 like that
MisadventureFilms 4 years ago 2
When did we come from apes?
Gplex 4 years ago 2
axactly
MisadventureFilms 4 years ago 2
During the last century fossils have been discovered which represent prehistoric forms closely related to man's ancestors, fossils with names of Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo habilis and others, all of which surely were bipedal with an upright stance. But if they possessed the other characteristics of man is uncertain, as it cannot be seen from fossilised bones if the being was able to speak and think, or what kind of life it lived.
Gplex 4 years ago
As a matter of fact all we can tell is a whole lot of nothing from these fossils. Without someone putting up a whole lot of conjecture.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
I suppose you could claim that to be true if it wasnt for the dna evidence.
Gplex 3 years ago
Oh the DNA that in no way could have evolved? What does the DNA tell us in this case in your opinion?
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Ah that everything on the planet is related.. wtf did you think I ment.
Gplex 3 years ago
Hmmmm... not very convincing argument. Sounds like you're just regurgitating an opinion you have no knowledge of.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Well if you think dna cant be trusted you should stop it from being used as evidence to convict people.
Gplex 3 years ago
DNA can be trusted, it's the liars that put words in its and everybody's mouth that can't be trusted. How did DNA evolve? And the base assertion that DNA is proof that everything is related, what makes you think that fantasy is true?
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
These no way I can educate you in 500 characters, you basically claiming that dna is a fantasy because you dont understand it. Now thats pretty stupid..
Anyone go read a book, and think about this, if dna doesnt change, then why is it that your dna isnt the same as your parents, you sister, your bother...
Gplex 3 years ago
That's what I thought. You make a bold assertion and then when I ask you to elaborate you tell me to read a book and add ad hominem because that's all you've got. If it weren't for ad hominem evlutionists couldn't come with anything but the mantra: it IS a fact, it IS a fact. But ask them to back up any of the bold assertions and they get weal mad. If there were truth behind the assertions the facts would be there to backup the claims. It seems that your theory just dissolves into thin air.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lady paleontologist straightrens out creationists .Pretty as she is smart -
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of 4'
flyingscience 3 years ago
DNA is more proof of God than any pseudoscientific theory that still swings in the breeze waiting for the real evidence. It shows the design in humanity, and that there was obviously a designer, to someone who's not terrified of that concept to the point of constructing walls of denial and pseudoscience in its place.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
"DNA is more proof of God than any ..."
LOL
How is DNA proof of a god?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
intelligence is defined as taking in information from your environment, processing it and reacting to it accordingly. Reactive properties are something materials possess, meaning if god is intelligent he must also be material. Material objects cannot form into complex shapes spontaneously, meaning he must have either gradually formed without intelligent intervention or have been created himself. But that just leads to the question of where his creator came from or how he formed on his own.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
Why do you automatically assume life needs a designer? Most complex structures are created through trial and error processes, with less efficient variants being discarded and more complex ones being worked off of. Bio-molecules are capable of creating things without intelligence, producing variation without intelligence and selecting for more efficient shapes without intelligence. All real intelligence does is speed things up.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
" How did DNA evolve?"
It doesn't matter. That fact is that DNA does evolve is what is important in the theory of evolution. But for your information DNA evolved from RNA. What did RNA evolve from? earlier simpler versions.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
"And the base assertion that DNA is proof that everything is related"
DNA is not proof, but contains the proof. There are things called markers in DNA. Things that have no function which appear in related species. They are caused by copying mistakes and viruses and get passed on through each generation and as species diverge the emergent species still contain the evidence. That is where the proof is.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
alot look animated
PureBrutalSickness 4 years ago
Huh? Proven partially-formed features? Where? Did you send a copy of that to Dr. Duane Gish and get him to help you publish it? Now, what science DOES show us, is that every feature of every animal on earth is fully developed and used by the creature. You comic book version of reality is in your mind.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
So you admit that the flatworm eye is fully formed? So the eye transitionals don't have to be partially formed, yet every other transitional does?
Impaler1815 4 years ago
lol, again a stupid vid. Just putting some bones next to each other. LOL. You can't prove anything with this, only if we can investegate them alive. XD You are stupid, sorry.:(
yourmasterurmyslave 4 years ago 2
There's no such thing as a transitional fossil. If evolution were true, TF would outnumber fully-formed animals, even living today, by billions-to-one. And yet, there are no transitionals - no partially developed or transient features in any animal, living or in fossil. Read this article I wrote recently which illuminates the latest evolutionist hoaxed "transitional" form:
home(do t)comcast(do t)net(slash)~internationalhero(slash)Foundry(slash)Icthyostega(do t)h tm
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You really don't learn anything do you? I proved there were numerous partially formed features, by any standard, yet you still make that claim. So do you still think a flatworm eye is as fully formed as a human eye? I see you're also going on about this evolutionist conspiracy to undermine God. It's funny, the only way you can account for the lack of evidence for your side is to claim a conspiracy, despite lack of evidence and motive.
Impaler1815 4 years ago
This moron mentions afrenthesis and others which have been proven either hoaxes or fully formed apes or ancient humans. Somebody has not done their homewordk. Instead, they have listened doe-eyed to evolutionist brainwashing and lies. Hey kid, watch my pocket watch swing... repeat after me... "Evolution, evolution, evolution..." LOL
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Hmm, no, got to go with Jan and vote for 'The missing link' being the ID's biggest lie.
Especially since they want to have Evolution as a synonym to Darwinism, and Darwin himself claimed that if these formes could not be found, his theory is in trouble, They get a hardone reading that.
How i whish they could understand that every lifeform is a transitional form.
mindwis3 4 years ago
Thanks for posting. The 'lack of intermediate forms' is perhaps creationism's most biggest lies.
JanSchipper 4 years ago
Actually, creationists' biggest lie is "evolution will be soon widely rejected" - this lie has been going on for nearly 200 years.
Hobu123 4 years ago
right so what do you think that means?? apparently two human genomes would also differ alot so what is the point??
Curi0uss0uL 5 years ago
Two human genomes differ VERY little. A neanderthal genome and a human genome would differ a lot more.
Kabane52 5 years ago
Nope. The difference would be even less than between human and chimp - which is tiny.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
as usual they wont stand the test of time! Neandertal is now just human..lucy is an ape..NONE stand the test of time...frauds abound..misinterpretations etc etc.. just google "fake fossils business china"... they get HUGE money for these fake fossils ya know??..
Curi0uss0uL 5 years ago
Are you aware that they sequenced part of a neanderthal genome and it was very different from a human
Kabane52 5 years ago
What! Define 'very different', please. Or give your references. Which 'part of a neanderthal genome' was sequenced, anyway? Is this just mitochondrial?
cdavis9999 4 years ago
@Curi0uss0uL if you go into this thinking "nope, there just frauds" then you admit willful ignorance. neaderthal is not human, its DNA was sampled and it was not homo sapien
patrickledford420 1 year ago
kabane!! have you got an answer to my post "ok just pick your most compelling ape-man fossil for me to investigate that would help thanks! and ya know the way apes cant straighten their knees..how do explain that one then??
Curi0uss0uL 5 years ago
Watch the video.
Kabane52 5 years ago
ok just pick one ape-man fossil for me to investigate that would help thanks! and ya know the way apes cant straighten their knees..how do explain that one then??
Curi0uss0uL 5 years ago 2
Like it or not men are apes.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
No humans arent apes. We both share a common ancestry from ape like mammals but humans are humans and apes are apes. You finally have an actual reason to say I denied something you wrote.
YAAAAAAAAAY!
But you're right this was a waste of time. I ask questions. You hurl nonresponsive UNFOUNDED accusations. The funny thing is you think I was debating you. Peaceout
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Face it, humans are apes. We are apes that share a common ancestor with another species of ape. What's so unbelievable about that?
Impaler1815 5 years ago
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah
That never fails to sound idtiotic: humans are apes. Maybe evolutionists were created by nothing and came from apes, fine have fun being immoral because you're just animals.
We were created by God and came from dust, and none of the garbage you come up with makes ANY sense EXCEPT to an ape. If it makes you happy then be an ape. God gave us dominion over the animals because we are higher than the animals. Get your head out of your monkey butts!
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
"A primate (L. prima, first) is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans."
Meet the family:
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Primate
RuinedSaint 4 years ago
Wow, I guess it's a fact then. You're an ape. Who knew?
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
We are apes, we are also mammals and vertebrates, are you going to complain about those as well because the also relate us to animals.
Gplex 3 years ago
Everything relates us to animals, and anything that looks alike must have evolved one into the other, and every fossil is a transitional; is there anything that you don't see as proof of evolution? Dogma has bewildered your wits.
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
Gplex 3 years ago
Yeah sure when I'm talking to a bunch of apes?
ricaleigh007 3 years ago
Are you saying humans are not apes? Next thing you know you wont want humans to be called mammals, vertebrates, Multicellular organism etc etc.. your argument that you have read from a creationist website has already been refuted over and over.
Gplex 3 years ago
@ricaleigh007 we ARE apes
patrickledford420 1 year ago
YOU are, as for me and my household we shall serve the Lord.
ricaleigh007 1 year ago
@ricaleigh007 yeh, just like serving the "lord" was what the person who classified us as apes was doing, since he was a theist creationist. why does admitting that we are apes (look up the definition of ape) and that the evidence for evolution is beyond reasonable doubt? if you want to learn more about evolution, please, personal message me
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@ricaleigh007 you and your family will serve a fake fairytale monster... ok.. i guess if you enjoy wasting your time, thats cool, just keep it out of our schools and govt.
raztis1 1 year ago
As far as i am aware all the so called ape-man skulls have been shown to be either ape or human, right? and as for the 'dino to birds' fossils.. they are all from china where there is a fake fossil business, they get more money for full fossils so they carefully construct them and sell them to gullible evolutionists....
Curi0uss0uL 5 years ago
No... Creationists themselves debate among themselves over whether this or that skull is fully ape or fully human, Dino to bird fossils are in China. Because dinosaurs evolved in China.
Kabane52 5 years ago
Then your awareness is incomplete. Do you really think that anyone could create a 'fake fossil' that would fool a modern paleontologist? A century ago, maybe; but not now.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
1999 Dr. Currie an evolutionist had this to say about Archaeoraptor...
"Archaeoraptor is remarkably significant . . . it's no longer just a bird, it's clearly a dinosaur. It has that combination that truly makes this a missing link . . . so many deny there is [sic] such things. Well, this clearly is a missing link and it's one that unites dinosaurs to birds" (emp. added, JJ).
Curi0uss0uL 4 years ago
>>>cont
There was no doubt, no caution -- only 100% arrogant assertion. The evols see what thye wnat to see...later when it was discovered to be a fake he said
"Well, at that time, the best evidence we had was that the tail did belong, and we had pretty well >>convinced ourselves<< that it did.
How many other measurements have been taken of various teeth and bones that "prove" evolution, but are merely the result of frenzied excitement?
Curi0uss0uL 4 years ago 2
For heavensake get a grip. Archaeoraptor fooled a few people - for a MONTH! The only reason it got as far as it did was that both the species used to make it up were previously unknown. Despite that, palaeontologists were onto it in days after it went public.
If this one petty hoax is grounds, in your eyes, to blow off all fossil data, you need mind-opening surgery.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
one hoax? are you serious?..anyhow...i was just answering your question..you asked "Do you really think that anyone could create a 'fake fossil' that would fool a modern paleontologist? A century ago, maybe; but not now. "
well that was 1999...These evolutionists are fallible ..only human i know..but some people put all there trust in them...
In any case what does a fossil prove? a evolutionist would probably look at 2 brothers who looked alike and conclude 1 evolved from the other....
Curi0uss0uL 4 years ago 2
there have been many fake fossils that fooled over zealous evols. Piltdown man, nebraska man to name a few
steveabrous 4 years ago 2
For small values of 'many', presumably.
And how long were they fooled? Months? Years? If you base your rejection of evolution on such propaganda, expect an erroneous worldview.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
hahahaha! homo erectus? sorry... i'm missing the point I know, but that is a funny name.
kajaragi 5 years ago
Every species is a transitional species. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. I am a transitional individual.
Savagery34 5 years ago
Why are any of those "transitional" species and not just species?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Really, they are just species. They are classified as transitional because they were the past forms of today's species.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
Thats only if you believe if all animals share a source organism. Why couldnt these animals have simply died and new completely unconnected but similar ones developed?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Lets see. 99% of all life on earth died. Are you implying that at some point there were 100 times as many species on earth, all only having slight variations between them, and they just hapened to die out in the particluar order to make it seem as if they are transitional? That's simply ridiculous and illogical.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
Actually the only thing thats ridiculous and illogical is to exclude any possiblility especially on a subject you have and could never witness. Fossils are a rarity not empirical proof. Or are you saying you witnessed a dinosaur turn into a bird? You can keep your insults. You evolution zealots sound no different than theists with their "god made everything" explination.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
It is an impossibility for what I mentioned to happen. Fossils may not be empiricle, but no single peice of evidence is. But the fossil record is one of the strongest peices of evidence for evolution. The "were you there" defense has got to be the lamest thing ever. If you saw a man standing of a dead body, holding a knife that was still in the victim, covered in blood, and there was DNA evidence, would you let him off on reasonable doubt because you weren't there?
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
The "were you there" is what seperates truth from fiction. You cant use circumstantial evidence to "prove" anything. Thats why evolution will always be a theory and not a law. But thanks for that "lame" analogy watch how simply I crush it. ~cont~
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
The were you there defense is actually pathetic. And FYI, it doesn't matter if people observe a monkey giving birth to a human or not, evolution will never be a law. I don't think you understand the meaning of the words. A scientific theory is the best explanation based on the evidence that goes along with the laws.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
~cont~
You walk in your house your wife is screaming on the floor covered in blood with a knife stuck in her so deep its pinning her to the floor. Not even hours before you had sex with her and she scratches hard sometimes breaking the skin. Hysterical you start to grab the knife to rush her to the hospital you didnt even close the door and your neighbor walks by now you're in the same situation you described. Your wife dies before she can talk. Should you go to jail?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
That only works if the victim and person found have a personal relationship. If they have no relationshyip your defense falls apart. If the time of death was placed at 6 hours, you saying he walked in and saw it no longer works. Your entire defense to my hypothetical situation relies on you putting in more information.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
Because that would require way more evolution than Darwin or any scientist has ever proposed. Way too much over too short a time period. It's physically impossible, unless you want to say life is the product of a million times more evolution than anyone has ever said.
Savagery34 5 years ago
So what if no scientist ever proposed it? Darwins theories werent proposed by anyone before were they?Millions of years is too short of a time period? Why would life forms stop evolving? Why is it "impossible"?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Darwin's theories were thought of before. His were simply the best ones. He also came up with Natural Selection, which was the missing mechanism in evolution.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
Natural selection is not the mechanism to make some thing evolve its simply survival of the fittest creature. There is no mechanism to explain the necessary mutations for evolution to be a law. Period.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Evolution can't be a law. YOu clearly don't understand the sietific process. And it's more like survival of the fit.
Natural selection and mutation are the mechanisms. Natural selection easily explains the mutations for evolution.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
Go ahead and try.
Please tell me how survival of the fittest generates mutatations in lifeforms.
P.s. I dont think anyone understands the "sietific" process. lol
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
It's called natural selection. And it doesn't cause mutations. It allows animals with beneficial mutations to survive better.
Example: Say that the oxygen levels on earth drop for whatever reason. If there is an organism that has a mutation that allows him to use oxygen more efficiently, he will survive better than others, reproduce more, and pass on that mutation to his offspring.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
I'm interigued. How exactly does evolution "really work".
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
I thought you were a young earth dude. The diversification we observe can't possibly conform with the claims of the bible, that's all I meant. It still doesn't make any sense, but time isn't the problem if you can accept a 4 billion year old earth. Biologically, it's clear we stem from the same tree. Call it the universe, call it God, but a seperate tree for each kind of animal doesn't make sense given our observations. Perhaps you meant nothing of the sort, and I'm full of shit.
Savagery34 5 years ago
No you've got it right. But to me it seems more feasible for MOST species to have developed seperately, even if they look similar, as opposed to all life branching from the same type of organism. The possibility that some unknown stimulus produced varient 'positive' mutations on the same organism is very slim. But the same stimulus acting on different organisms makes more sense. At least to me anyway. lol
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
So it's most reasonable to you that every species developed seperately, even though looking at genetics and the fossil record it shows thier development? What you want is simply not possible.
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
LOL my bad I just realized your a kid. Wait till you get to college and are exposed to a less generlized version of the sciences and maybe your eyes will open to how many viable possibilities for the development of life on earth. Who knows maybe you could discover how evolution "really" works. Peaceout
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
I can't possibly write down the scietifif process properly with a 500 character limit. And just so you know, that is how a theory works in science. YOu clearly didn't make much use of your college "education".
BalmungSama0 5 years ago
Ahhhh of course we just havn't been told the whole story about evolution! I guess that's why a mere 99.85% of scientists in Earth and life sciences believe in evolution?
Impaler1815 5 years ago
99.85% of what kind of scientists? Where did you get that stat? But what does that matter? There are billions of people who believe the earth and the universe were made by a singular cosmic being. One whom you can't see, hear, taste, smell or touch. Should we acept that as fact as well?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Whether there is a god is irrelevant to biological evolution being true, in fact many people believe in both. You said people who believe in evolution aren't getting the full story. Are those 99.85% of scientists who've been studying these things their whole lives, and seeing the evidence first hand, not getting the full story?
Impaler1815 5 years ago
If a "god" exists and created life that is completely relevant to biological evolution.
uhh you're the only one who said anything about a full story. And that 99.85% is your number as well. But 99.85% of scientists dont study evolution their whole lives. Biology is only a branch of science. And the evidence they see is the same we see when they publish their findings.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
But this is SCIENTISTS! Who know things
Kabane52 5 years ago
Everyone who uses science is a scientist. SOME have specialized fields of study. That qualify their opinions and findings over others but that doesnt make your personal or untested theory invalid. Not to mention some have been caught lying to prove there hypotheses.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
There is no "stimulus" to produce these positive mutations. Out of every group of mutations a few of them will be positive. Those that aren't die off and those that are survive to pass on their
Impaler1815 5 years ago
Please explain to me how its even remotely possible to mutate the gentic code for an eye or a toungue? Theses are organs with specific purposes there is no reason for the organs to exist other than what we use them for. These types of "mutations" can be forced with advanced gene manipulation. But naturally? That's a huge stretch.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
The eye has been explained many times over. Once something's in place all it needs is gradual change to make it more and more complex. The eye in its simplest form today is nothing more than a few light sensitive cells. The tongue can do the same. All you need is some sort of muscle to manipulate food and it's sitting back and waiting from then.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
So you cant is what you're saying? I've never talked with you before so you've never explained the eye to me. Light sensitive how? Photons or radiation? I know what a tongue is but why is it is the question?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
If you want to find out more do some research. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to someone who's just going to ignore it and tell me I'm wrong no matter what I say. I explained how these organs can get started and all you need to do there is wait for mutation and natural selection to refine it.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
Oh YOU'VE published work? Well since I was asking YOUR opinion point me to YOUR research and I'll look over that. Its funny how you think I've ignored what you've said just because I asked questions about it. But I'll take this hostility as a sign that you CANT answer as opposed to wont. Sorry for "wasting your time". Peace
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Oh I'm sorry I guess you're a paleontologist, biologist, chemist, geneticist, geologist who's seen every piece of evidence first hand and done detailed studies on all of them to bring you to the conclusion that evolution doesn't exist. Almost every creationist I have debated has ignored or simply denied the validity of every piece of evidence I've given.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
Am I to assume you think I'm a creationist?
Did I say I held any of those titles?
Did I imply that I held degrees in any of those disciplines?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
So you're not a creationist? Very well, what do you believe then?
I was making the point that you don't need to be an expert on something to have an opinion, as you seemed to be attacking me on doing so.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
Your reactions to mutations and transitional fossils don't show you to be any different. If you're really going to listen to evidence and not just deny it then I'll be happy to give you a proper debate.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
Please copy and paste what I've denied.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
cont. Genes. We have observed dramatic variation coming from populations that stemed from a single individual. We have observed variation and evolution about as fast as we can in the time we've observed it, what stops that variation and evolution continuing?
Impaler1815 5 years ago
You have observed different species developing from one root species? What might those be? I dont think life ever stops changing. Our lifespans are infinitesimal when compared to the planets. But we are on the verge of being able to force evolution. So we can make it happen.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
I'm not sure if they actually reached the different species mark but there was variation in populations in bacteria decended from a single individual. These experiments are not controlled by any forces other than what nature would allow.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
How similar are bacteria to plants and animals?
If mutations didnt spawn new species then how is your original statement relevant? Evolution is used to explain the varient forms of life on earth. To assume that mutations that dont kill an organism somehow develop into viable organelles is speculation at best.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
When did I ever say mutations don't spawn a new species? Mutations only kill an organism if the changes are so great that the species simply can't survive or two complementary bases are deleted, causing cancer. Organelles most likely came from whole other organisms themselves, hence the similarity between them and bacteria. Countless benificial mutations have been observed. To say they havn't or can't is either ignorance or out right denial.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
When did I say you did?
Did I say there havent or cant be beneifical mutations?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
"To assume that mutations that dont kill an organism somehow develop into viable organelles is speculation at best."
"There is no mechanism to explain the necessary mutations for evolution to be a law. Period."
Impaler1815 5 years ago
And how are those statments untrue?
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago
Their validity is not the point, you asked for when you had said benificial mutations are impossible.
Either way I have already explained why both of those are incorrect.
Impaler1815 5 years ago
They're both untrue: each beneficial mutation is a lottery win - rare, but it happens. Evolution keeps the winnings each time, because it has millions of years to play with. Over time, the wins accumulate, piece by tiny piece. A new useful protein once a century is enough to make a whole new critter eventually.
The bad mutations just die; the good ones multiply. Evolution is simply a fact. Get over it.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
What are you talking about?
What bacteria has developed new functional organelles due to mutation?
What exactly is the mechanism that would trigger the mutation in a multicelluar organism necessary to develop functional ears?
Did I deny evolution? Or am I simply not slavish to it? Nor afraid to question it or postualate alternatives to established theories?
TheLoadedQuestion 4 years ago
More confusion - there is no 'mechanism to trigger evoltion' toward any goal. It doesn't work that way. Genes change, and if they're useful, they're conserved.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
I already know there is no mechanism to trigger the necessary mutations to explain the complexity of life. Which is why I'm not slavishly promoting any one version of evolution and why I'll always remain skeptical toward any process that cannot be empirically proven. I think its really presumptuous to claim random mutations cause complex organs when we cant even show they create simple organelles.
TheLoadedQuestion 4 years ago
You must ask yourself why, if mutations can cause beneficial, novel proteins at all, there should be any limit. Each new beneficial mutation accumulates, and if it takes a thousand years for each change, and it takes a thousand mutations for a new organ, then you'll get one every million years.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
Again I've yet to see or even be told about one beneficial mutation. So to simply assume that the exist is speculation and belief. And not science. You cant claim an untested or observed hypothesis as fact. Period. I know life evolved but it is the how I question. With a better understanding of gene manipulation we can force evolution but then WE would be the mechanism that is NECESSARY imo for the complexity most try to pass off as a natural occurence.
TheLoadedQuestion 4 years ago
NO beneficial mutations? Eric Hovind said that to me today. IT was really silly, seeing as how his flood model not only need speciation, but he also needs it to be incredibly rapid. He depends on beneficial mutations. I'll give you examples: born without wisdom teeth, a more efficient metabolism, some people are capable of producing cancer-fighting chemicals within their body (very rare, but clearly beneficial), denser muscle mass, etc. Denying beneficial mutations just seems silly to me.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Where did I deny them? How is being born with no wisdom teeth advantageous? Not everyone needs to have them removed. Metabolic rates differ from person to person and slow as we age. What is the "mutation" that controls this? What chemicals are produced, from what organ and where can I find info on this? Beneficial to whom if the person never develops cancer what effect do those chemicals have? Who has a noticibly denser muscle mass?
TheLoadedQuestion 4 years ago
Being born with no wisdom teeth is advantageous because you are immune to impacting. In the wild they would eat more, live longer, and reproduce more.
There are genes that control the metabolism.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
The chemicals are anticarcinogens. They aren't produced by any specific organ. The genes remain active in all cells. Any good scientific resource should have the info.
If the person never develops cancer, it will be passed on to their descendants. You end up with a family bloodline that can survive some of the most dangerous cancers with little or no treatment. Without cancer, it is neutral.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
The muscle mass is too common and isn't revolutionary enough to list specific people. However, genes for muscle production are found. While excersise is still necessary, with the same time spent, more muscle is built.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Mutations, neutral, harmful and beneficial, have been observed. There is no mechanism to specifically cause beneficial mutations. There is, however, a mechanism that can thin out populations of bad mutations, and preserve and spread the good: natural selection.
BalmungSama0 4 years ago
Evolution can be observed in bacteria because a) they have very short generations, b) having one cell, DNA damage always affects their offspring, and c) they have conjugation, which spreads a new gene to the whole colony in hours.
Bigger animals just take more time - more, unfortunately, than laboratories have been around.
cdavis9999 4 years ago
Please point me to any data on any bacteria developing new organelles, be they vestigial or functional.
Also how similar are animals and bacteria?
TheLoadedQuestion 4 years ago
Calculous doesn't have to "make sense to you" to be correct....quit assuming everything must fit YOUR guideline to life.
KingHeathen 5 years ago
Isnt that what your doing?
Did I say I was right?
Did I say anyone else was wrong?
Where do you get that I think you should adhere to my way of thinking?
You know what they say when you assume something right?
Maybe you should try thinking outside of the box and theorize your own form of evolution instead of the slavish adherence to someone else's ideas.
TheLoadedQuestion 5 years ago