Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

"Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.

No you have shown your ignorance of a code and language that can only be explained to have come into existence through intelligence.

Codes and language require intelligence.

 

[LOki]

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

"Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.

No you have shown your ignorance of a code and language that can only be explained to have come into existence through intelligence.

Codes and language require intelligence.

"Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.

 

[Photonic]

Just going to leave this here.

 

[daws101]

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just going to leave this here.

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think this better fits the evolutionist model.

 

[LOki]

Just going to leave this here.

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.

"Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.

The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.

Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ?

The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.

sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism.

This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.

Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared.

There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.

This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory.

Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.

Even if your patent bullshit WAS valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.

Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created ...

The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.

... and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just going to leave this here.

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.

"Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.

A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.

No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.

What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.

The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.

This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.

This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.

In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.

Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.

The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.

We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.

There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.

Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.

Even if your patent bullshit WAS valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.

The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.

And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.

Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.

Can you provide these transitional fossils ?

Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.

Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?

Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?

Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.

 

[daws101]

I think this better fits the evolutionist model.

then your self imposed ignorance runs deeper than I though.

 

[daws101]

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.

"Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.

A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.

No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.

What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.

The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.

This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.

This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.

In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.

Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.

The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.

We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.

There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.

Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.

Even if your patent bullshit WAS valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.

The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.

And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.

No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.

Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.

Can you provide these transitional fossils ?

Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.

Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?

Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?

Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.

(A few) transitional fossils

 

[Photonic]

Just going to leave this here.

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[daws101]

Just going to leave this here.

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?

more like cognitive bias!

 

[Photonic]

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?

more like cognitive bias!

Little bit of A, little bit of B.

 

[daws101]

Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?

more like cognitive bias!

Little bit of A, little bit of B.

and a heap of BS.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.

A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.

No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.

What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.

The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.

This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.

This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.

In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.

Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.

Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.

The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.

We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.

There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.

Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.

Even if your patent bullshit WAS valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.

The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.

And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.

No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.

There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.

Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.

Can you provide these transitional fossils ?

Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.

Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?

Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?

Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.

(A few) transitional fossils

You have to be kidding right

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just going to leave this here.

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Put up time.

 

[daws101]

Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.

Can you provide these transitional fossils ?

Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.

Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ? How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?

Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?

Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information. Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.

(A few) transitional fossils

You have to be kidding right

no more than you.. Although I do get a good laugh out of the pictures in the bible....total artistic license...based an fantasy!

 

[daws101]

Ok let's look at your example of evolution.

You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.The evidence that supports this is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Things suddnly appear with no transitions.

We observe micro-adaptations that come about because of the enviornment but we also see when the enviornment goes back to what it was before the organisms go back to the way it was is this evolution or just adaptations ? Example animals growing long hair in the winter and when spring returns they shed the long hair. So this micro-adaptation was built in to the DNA information it is a normal function to have this ability for animals.

Man has assigned a family for each species or breed of animals and said they are related because of morphological and DNA similarity. But are they really related ? sure some are similar enough they can cross breed but does that prove descent ?

The real problem here for evolutionist is that animals and man has appeared suddenly without showing gradualism. Here are a few questions for you.

If animals over time gradually change through evolution where are the transitional fossils ?

Why are the animals that supposedly evolved still here and the transitional species extinct ?

Why did natural selection supposedly eliminate transitional animals and not the original animal that evolved ?

Why do we see fossils that according to evolutionist are very old but we have the same organisms today and they show no change after all these years ?

Why are the supposed transitional animals extinct since they were supposedly better adapted and passed on their traits ?

Why do we not see transitional animals all over the planet since evolution is constantly happening because we know every living thing has mutations ?

So honestly with the lack of these transitions and the theory of punctuated equilibrium things do seem to have suddenly appeared. This evidence supports the creation theory not the evolution theory. Animals and man suddenly appeared because they were created and because these animals and man have the ability to adapt your theory of macro-evolution has been an extrapolation of these abilities to adapt.

Your theory needed a way for new genetic information to arrise and they assume because mutations can change information this is the way evolution happens.

But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.

Amazing that you put all those letters into that post and still managed to miss the entire point of that post.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Put up time.

looks like you don't understand the term.

 

[Youwerecreated]

more like cognitive bias!

Little bit of A, little bit of B.

and a heap of BS.

Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]


“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]


[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]


- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

 

[Montrovant]

Little bit of A, little bit of B.

and a heap of BS.

Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]


“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]


[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]


- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?

You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong. Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".