Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process."
I'm not sure i understand what this means, but I can tell you that we have confirmed , via empirical observations, every single mechanism of evolution, including natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. Also, while mutations may be random, selection most certainly is not.
and you ignored my question. This is why you edit posts.A million years is pretty fast! You expect an organism to show up in the fossil record with 1/4 of an eye. Then 1/2 of an eye. Then 3/4 of an eye. Finally an eye! Those are your missing links. You won't ever see that.
You see... you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Given your propensity for also not understanding basic English definitions, you might be slightly mentally retarded... have you been checked?
I didn't say "a million" ...I said "millions" as in MORE THAN ONE! Idiot!
And no... a 1/4 eye is not functional. The human eye requires ALL it's parts to work. It is totally useless as an eye without ALL it's parts. Again... MANY years ago, science thought the eye had evolved from a simpler photovoltaic cell but in studying and further understanding how the optic nerve works, we discovered this is not possible.
What I won't see is what you don't have evidence to support. I don't take your word for things, I need to see the evidence and evaluate it for myself. That's how I form my beliefs.
"Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I have no idea what you mean by this."That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process."
I'm not sure i understand what this means, but I can tell you that we have confirmed , via empirical observations, every single mechanism of evolution, including natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. Also, while mutations may be random, selection most certainly is not.
In terms of science this is as hollow as we have empirical observations, every mechanism of chemistry, including <whatever chemical> that chemical reactions do occur.
Predictability on the other is that,
before lab I predict that,
2H2O = 2H2 + O2
after lab shows that the above prediction is 100% realized. If not you deserve a Nobel Prize!
"I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject.""Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.
and you ignored my question. This is why you edit posts.A million years is pretty fast! You expect an organism to show up in the fossil record with 1/4 of an eye. Then 1/2 of an eye. Then 3/4 of an eye. Finally an eye! Those are your missing links. You won't ever see that.
You see... you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Given your propensity for also not understanding basic English definitions, you might be slightly mentally retarded... have you been checked?
I didn't say "a million" ...I said "millions" as in MORE THAN ONE! Idiot!
And no... a 1/4 eye is not functional. The human eye requires ALL it's parts to work. It is totally useless as an eye without ALL it's parts. Again... MANY years ago, science thought the eye had evolved from a simpler photovoltaic cell but in studying and further understanding how the optic nerve works, we discovered this is not possible.
What I won't see is what you don't have evidence to support. I don't take your word for things, I need to see the evidence and evaluate it for myself. That's how I form my beliefs.
What made you deny the Christian God? It appears you do deny the Bible. I take it you used to be religious but that finally God too much for even you.
I don't deny the Christian God or the The Bible. I just don't believe in them. I never have.
I find it hard to believe God has humanistic attributes... Love, caring, compassion, anger, jealousy, desire and need. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being need these attributes? I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to that question, therefore, I don't believe in such a God.
I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes.
MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity.
It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds. Why do I believe this? Because Spiritual Nature seems to steer us on a particular path and course of goodness and righteousness. I believe there is a purpose for this. Perhaps our mortal existence is a test of our souls to see if we are ready for a higher plane of existence?
"I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject."Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.
Yes, exactly what I said. So, really, the proper counter to your nonsensical argument is thus:
"I defy you to show me a fossil that is NOT a transitional fossil."
Then, you can flail away forever in the ether of fallacy, and leave the rest of us to it.
"I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject."Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.
Yes, exactly what I said. So, really, the proper counter to your nonsensical argument is thus:
"I defy you to show me a fossil that is NOT a transitional fossil."
Then, you can flail away forever in the ether of fallacy, and leave the rest of us to it.
Again, you are demonstrating a problem you have with words and the context in which they are being used in a conversation. I really wonder if you may have ingested lead paint chips as a child or something. I'm repeatedly having to stop and take time to correct you on things you've misinterpreted.
When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. Where is the fossil of the fish with half-formed legs transitioning into a reptile? It doesn't exist. Where is the fossil of the half horse-half giraffe? It fucking doesn't exist! You have horses with shorter legs becoming horses with longer legs. All your fossils show transition within their genus taxon. Where are the trillions of examples showing cross-genus speciation?
Evolution is not predictable.You IDers make me laugh. You don't even understand that to surrender to microevolution, you also surrender to macroevolution. It's like you claim it is possible to be a little bit pregnant!
It's you who are laughable. Science is about how to bring the theoretical process predictable. Microevolution bears a good chance to be made predictable but not macroevolution.
Evolution is random mutation and other processes acted upon by non-random selection.
Any claimed science behave the same. Any scientific claims will have to be backed up by a successful predictable model.
That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process.
What made you deny the Christian God? It appears you do deny the Bible. I take it you used to be religious but that finally God too much for even you.
I don't deny the Christian God or the The Bible. I just don't believe in them. I never have.
I find it hard to believe God has humanistic attributes... Love, caring, compassion, anger, jealousy, desire and need. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being need these attributes? I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to that question, therefore, I don't believe in such a God.
I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes.
Interesting and thank you finally for that much! I agree with this so far.
MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity.
Those are physical not spirit, but I get the point. You could call that Nature or even Mom Nature.
It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
Now you are talking God, just a different God. I conclude from this that there can be communication like prayer? Your spirit has just become a being with consciousness.
However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds. Why do I believe this? Because Spiritual Nature seems to steer us on a particular path and course of goodness and righteousness. I believe there is a purpose for this. Perhaps our mortal existence is a test of our souls to see if we are ready for a higher plane of existence?
Judged? It sounds like you are talking God without all the fairy tales. What happens if we fail the judgement?
"I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject."Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.
Yes, exactly what I said. So, really, the proper counter to your nonsensical argument is thus:
"I defy you to show me a fossil that is NOT a transitional fossil."
Then, you can flail away forever in the ether of fallacy, and leave the rest of us to it.
Again, you are demonstrating a problem you have with words and the context in which they are being used in a conversation. I really wonder if you may have ingested lead paint chips as a child or something. I'm repeatedly having to stop and take time to correct you on things you've misinterpreted.
When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. Where is the fossil of the fish with half-formed legs transitioning into a reptile? It doesn't exist. Where is the fossil of the half horse-half giraffe? It fucking doesn't exist! You have horses with shorter legs becoming horses with longer legs. All your fossils show transition within their genus taxon. Where are the trillions of examples showing cross-genus speciation?
"When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. "
How very arbitrary of you. You make up these arbitrary conditions, do not well-define them, then act as if it is everyone else's fault for not knowing exatly what you mean.
Again: EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, and I defy you to show me one that is not.
Have fun chasing your tail!
"I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject."Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.
Yes, exactly what I said. So, really, the proper counter to your nonsensical argument is thus:
"I defy you to show me a fossil that is NOT a transitional fossil."
Then, you can flail away forever in the ether of fallacy, and leave the rest of us to it.
Again, you are demonstrating a problem you have with words and the context in which they are being used in a conversation. I really wonder if you may have ingested lead paint chips as a child or something. I'm repeatedly having to stop and take time to correct you on things you've misinterpreted.
When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. Where is the fossil of the fish with half-formed legs transitioning into a reptile? It doesn't exist. Where is the fossil of the half horse-half giraffe? It fucking doesn't exist! You have horses with shorter legs becoming horses with longer legs. All your fossils show transition within their genus taxon. Where are the trillions of examples showing cross-genus speciation?
"When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. "
How very arbitrary of you. You make up these arbitrary conditions, do not well-define them, then act as if it is everyone else's fault for not knowing exatly what you mean.
Again: EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, and I defy you to show me one that is not.
Have fun chasing your tail!
Again, you are intentionally taking what I said out of context to make an inane point.
It's not arbitrary at all. Words in a conversation have context. Every fossil doesn't show one genus transitioning into another genus.
Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
Yes, every fossil is a "transition fossil" (which is actually a nonsensical term, avoided by scientists) under your own conditions, as evolution is working on all species at all times. Every species which has ever lived was and is "transitioning". Evolution is not something that can be stopped, no matter how hard we try.
So, again: show me a fossil that is NOT a "transitional fossil".
You appear to be stuck on the term genus. You admit speciation, but not at the genus level, nor higher taxa."Not seeing any evidence here."
Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.
I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.
Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils
As I have said many times before, even if we show you the missing link you would claim we didn't. You would then tell us we just caused two new gaps, one on each side of the new missing link.Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
Yes, every fossil is a "transition fossil" (which is actually a nonsensical term, avoided by scientists) under your own conditions, as evolution is working on all species at all times. Every species which has ever lived was and is "transitioning". Evolution is not something that can be stopped, no matter how hard we try.
So, again: show me a fossil that is NOT a "transitional fossil".
No, I did not arbitrarily choose genus, that's what we were discussing. I have already stated that microevolution within a genus is factual. So the entire debate is surrounding evolution across genus taxon. In THAT context, "transition" can only mean one thing. And you have exactly ZERO fossil evidence showing one genus transitioning to another genus. You also have no example of any living thing that is part one genus and part another genus because it is in a state of evolutionary transition.
Yes you do. I'm not saying you change posts. You remove parts and only respond to parts. It destroys anyone's ability to follow the subthread w/o going back to original posts.and you ignored my question. This is why you edit posts.A million years is pretty fast! You expect an organism to show up in the fossil record with 1/4 of an eye. Then 1/2 of an eye. Then 3/4 of an eye. Finally an eye! Those are your missing links. You won't ever see that.
You see... you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Given your propensity for also not understanding basic English definitions, you might be slightly mentally retarded... have you been checked?
I didn't say "a million" ...I said "millions" as in MORE THAN ONE! Idiot!
And no... a 1/4 eye is not functional. The human eye requires ALL it's parts to work. It is totally useless as an eye without ALL it's parts. Again... MANY years ago, science thought the eye had evolved from a simpler photovoltaic cell but in studying and further understanding how the optic nerve works, we discovered this is not possible.
What I won't see is what you don't have evidence to support. I don't take your word for things, I need to see the evidence and evaluate it for myself. That's how I form my beliefs.
I don't edit posts. I didn't ignore any question.
LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.
