Linear, I have checked out the links to the pictures of what you believe are transitional forms.....and once again I must repeat myself. How can anybody KNOW if they are transitional forms? How do we know that these fossils are in transition from one kind of animal becoming another, rather than being what they are and always were?
That requires a great deal of study. There isn't just one thing that can answer this question because the conclusion is drawn from many pieces of evidence. For Tiktaalik roseae just a small part of the evidence includes:
1. Scientists chose where to look (geologic layer, past environment, etc) based on other fossils that were tetrapods (amphibian-like animals) later in the geologic column and lobe-finned fish earlier in the geologic column.
2. The fossil found shows characteristics of both animals....ribs that expand...skull detached from the "shoulder" bones, fish-like tail....etc.
3. If all the different organisms that exist as fossils in the geologic column were created at the same time (in the beginning) then Adam would not have had room to breathe...much less lay down and go into a deep sleep.
We can already observe the variation in kinds today, existing at the sametime.... so you are going to have big problems pinning labels of "earlier transitional forms" when you have them existing side by side.
You are assuming that evolution is supposed to occur to all the population of an organism, causing the previous species to disappear. What part of evolution states this? What aspect of the mechanisms of evolution, variation among individuals in a population combined with environmental pressures, cause you to believe that the rise of a new species requires the destruction of the old species?
[quote}Which is why you guys manipulate the fossil findings of the past to fit your theory. (Translation: Evolution Scientists know that the theory is wrong yet they monkey with the evidence to make it look like evolution is true, because they are all liars in a big conspiracy)
Yet even the past is showing little to no change, they are fully recognisable.
An explanation of why this can occur has been provided to you. Refute the explanation. Repeating the same statement does not make it more true.
Evolution starts painting a picture of the past, we are simply told what to believe. They get a fossil, then draw a picture of it's gradual evolution, yet they were not even there to see if this actually happened. Evolutions LOVE extinct creatures, because this allows them to do what they want with the fossils and speak for it. Tell us what it is and how it came to be and what stage of evolution it's in and even match it with something else and make it all look like a process of evolution if they can. They love nothing more than drawing.
Drawings are used in textbooks and shows on tv because they simplify explanations. You are again accusing evolution scientists of lying and deceit. It might be a good idea to back up your accusation with a little more evidence than context-less photographs of fossils.
We cannot possibly know if it's a transitional form, without having the evidence of fossils going from simple to complex over time, the gradual changes from scales to feathers for example. Can you give me that proof? going from one kind of animal to another.
Right after you tell me what characteristics a "true" transitional should have. Obviously, the ones I provided did not meet with your stringent criteria. That puts the onus on you to provide a detailed description of what a transitional creature is.
I am not interested in drawings/charts, nor am I interested in fossils being put together deliberately as stages of evolution by the evolutionists.
Again with the accusation of deceit.
You will find plenty of animals today that share certain characteristics, but this does not mean one kind became anything else. It appears instead, if we are to believe in the fossil pictures I provided, that many of these so called earlier ancestors existed alongside the animals they had supposedly evolved into....so how can they be transitional? E.g. modern day birds do not look much different from the millions of year old fossilised birds....
Your "E.g" does not match your question. However, as I said earlier, no part of the theory of evolution requires the rise of a new species to eliminate the entire species that it came from. Since the mechanism of evolution is environment controlled, one population of a specific species might change in a particular environment while the rest of the species in a different environment would remain relatively unchanged.
For your "E.g.", no part of the theory of evolution requires that populations change significantly over time, especially if the environment remains relatively unchanged. Why do you think the theory implies otherwise?
I looked at the fossils given and this gives me no evidence of the transitional stages, even if the evolution attempts to place certain fossils in order and then call it evolution. So the nice drawings of it's gradual evolution are cancelled out by the fact they were fully formed then as they are now, and many existed around the sametime.
Are you saying that transitional species should not be fully formed? If that is a characteristic for transitionals, then we have a problem. How could creatures that are not fully formed survive to pass on their genes to a next generation?
They give a picture of the creature, then give a drawing of how it evolved. This is dishonest. It reminds me of this guy who owned a museum and was asked why there were no fossil evidence of transitional forms, yet it was being preached anyway (with the typical charts showing the evolution process) He admitted priviately and laid it on the line, that there is not one such transitional form that one could make a water tight argument out of and actually could'nt really give any. I could find that quote and repeat it here if necessary. He admitted this privately, and unfortunately for him the letter got out and he was very very embarrassed. His evolutionary colleagues were very UNIMPRESSED with him. But the man was at least being honest when he was cornered.
They were unimpressed with him because he had very little understanding of biology but believed that he did understand it. He was poorly educated about transitional
species and the recognition of such, yet he spouted off about how there are none.
That's like someone saying he's a Bible scholar but doesn't understand Paul's explanation of the mechanism of salvation (Roman road). I am sure you would say that he is deluding himself concerning his Bible knowledge.
We have already gone through the legs on snakes senario and once again, the evoutionist assumes they must have been legs, therefore we're to believe they were without really ever knowing or observing this.
No, this is different. It is a fossil snake with real legs, not vestigial.
Even if you found a snake with legs, how does this assume that it's a transitional form by the way?
The Bible says God took away the snake's legs. Since, according to Young Earth creationists, there were no deaths prior to the snakes losing their legs, how can we have a snake fossil
with legs?
I have already said that if the donkey had been extinct, the evolutionist would very likely have placed this as an earlier ancestor of the horse. They are basing this on assumption Linear, it is not based on fact, because we were not there.
Several facets to this statement. Hmmm.
An accusation of dishonesty or stupidity on the part of the scientists
who should know their chosen field of studyStatement that the idea of evolution came about before any facts were studied. You have evidence of this accusation?
Restatement of the "we can't know the past, because we weren't there". My rebuttal:
1. Therefore we cannot prosecute criminals without video/photographic evidence of them committing the act.
2. Therefore, we really don't know if Washington was at Valley Forge, we weren't there.
3. Therefore, we don't know if the Holocaust happened or not, we weren't there and the "records" have been handled by too many people, and we can't know if they were tampered with.
4. Therefore, we can't know that Christ died on the cross, for our sins.
If the fossil pictures show that the animals then are much the same as they are today, then how can that be called evolution, even if you find certain traits are differing (just as you do today amongst frogs, or any other animal of today), when can CLEARLY see that they were much the same and a turtle was still as much of a turtle then as it is now, as with every other example I gave. We do not see half evolved creatures on their way to becoming something we can recognise. They are fully recognisable as is, because we see the same kind today. Wow, surprise surprise.
Explained earlier. Repetition does not make a statement more true.
How can a dinosaur evolve into a bird Linear? Can you give me proof that scales have become feathers over time?
There was an experiment that some scientists did (reported on the Discovery Channel) where they changed the gene expression on chicken embryos and resulted in feathers instead of scales on the chicken's feet. I will try to find the research papers involved. However, this shows that a small change in gene expression (mutation) could result in a large overall change (fully formed feathers instead of scales).
Instead of charts showing me it did. How does a heavy boned dinosaur, evolve into a light boned bird with feathers? Bones are designed for flight, their entire structure is designed perfectly for what they do. How do you reconcile this with a dinosaur?
Theropod dino fossils have hollow bones.
Do you also think that as there are so many different creatures around, that a different species, does not mean it's an earlier ancestor evolving into a modern day bird. Especially when we find that the old birds in the fossil pictures are much the same as the modern day birds now. Once again, assumptions and this is all the evolutionist has.
Repetition does not cause a statement to be more true. Please show me why you think the development of a new species requires the elimination of the old species.
The rest of your reply was the same statements repeated, so I didn't think I needed to respond. However, if I missed something that you feel requires a response, please reiterate it and I will make an effort to address it.
