Perhaps your anticipation is based upon what your own eyes tell you?
My anticipation is based on being familiar with the types of claims that creationists here continually make. Your links seem to be talking about how new things have been learned about certain organisms and how they appear to be more complex than was thought. Instead of being pleasantly interested in the fact that we're learning more abot life on earth, a creationist will say, "Look! Even the simplest-seeming life on earth could not have evolved." This statement ignores quite a lot of evidence to the contrary, however, including the fossil record, dating methods and genetics.
Since when does anything in the fossil record, the cherry-picked dating methods, or genetics indicate non-living matter has the capacity to organize itself, encode itself with an amount of information so vast it hasn't yet been calculated, and add thereunto until the animal and plant kingdoms are fully accounted for?
Fossils don't demonstrate any capacity to encode information. Evodates don't. And genetics clearly shows that the exact opposite occurs in nature: information degrades over time, in spite of a battery of safeguards.
That every last lifeform is too complex to have evolved hardly requires explanation. A child of 9 or 10 can usetinker toys, legos, cards, toothpicks, mud & sticks, or whatever is available to construct more complicated things than random forces ever could. An adult can construct things which are more complex by at least an order of magnitude, and a team of adults can top this by another order of magnitude. Yet nothing made by man approaches life. That this should require to even be put into words is astonishing. This fact is surely one of the most obvious and self-evident of all indirect observations, with few rivals in serious contention for the title.
evolutionists continually changing the subject, unwilling to discuss most topics, preferring rather to spam bunk & then say we have to debunk all of it
And the person who came here to start this new thread about a new topic is . . .?
As I recall, you refused to comment on the human fossil record and didn't have anything to say about the foraminifera fossil record either. I'm not asking you to "debunk" these, but to explain how you can claim that evolution doesn't occur when evidence like this exists. You either have to explain it, or ignore it, and you have chosen to do the latter.
I think I explained the human & ape fossil mix quite plainly. The feet cannot be present if one desires confusion.
As far as debunking the foraminifera argument, I don't see that there's been any argument to debunk. It was just alleged that they prove evolutionism, but when I looked at them they didn't prove it, so I consider the hypothesis falsified.
Now if you'd prefer not to discuss slime molds or bacteria, don't.
Oh yes, since you've started the topic here, I'm fine with that. Maybe you'd like to explain the point you want to make.
Actually, I think these lifeforms debunk a handful of evoclaims on their own without explanation. Anyone aware of the claims can look at them and plainly see the claims don't match the evidence. Of course there are many, many evoclaims. I could indicate the ones they debunk, but then we just get into the boring "yes it does" & "no it doesn't" routine.
And the derailment attempts come, which are not just boring, they're irrational. What's your success rate with that tactic? Do you even keep track?
Now I'm not so silly that I don't understand the plusses involved. After you fail, you get to make a false accusation that a creationist is "dodging". So clever, so impressive... Since I'm obviously overmatched <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sadblownose.gif" alt="" /> by your trickery, I'll hold off for now.
But if you're serious about not discussing these life forms, maybe you could pop over to the Big Joke and give RAZD a little help with his
acorn story. He hasn't posted any evidence at all in support of his claim. In spite of the burdenless paradigm within which he chooses to operate, I'm sure he'd really appreciate any evidence you might find to support his extraordinary claim.
