Does his help you

[SmedlyButler]

envision the process of Evolution more vividly?

Link:Tiktaalik, Good example of a transitional fossil

Transitional fossils are the "missing links" everyone wants to see as evidence even though DNA sequencing is probably purer scientific support for the theory. Apparently the discovery of fossil remains of the hind limbs were the biggest surprise , being much more advanced towards tetrapodal development than previously guessed at.

 

[Vox]

Nope. There is no proof it is transitional. It is a hypothesis.
or an ancient mudskipper.

 

[The Irish Ram]

And yet the eye in both is complex. Explain that. In the simplest of creatures or the most complex, for an eye to work, optic nerves have to grow in the eye and in the brain, find their match and join with it. In a human fetus, one million nerve endings per eye have to travel through flesh and find and match up to it's mate in the brain, one million times per eye.
The eye, if it worked, was never simple or in need of evolving to preform.

If evolution is correct, where are all the people? If man has been reproducing for a million years, even if a generation was only an average of 43 years, the population growth would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. That would produce (at 2.5 children per couple) a population today of 10 to the 2091 power, or trillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsXtrillions of people that should be alive today. There should be more people on earth today than the total number of atoms in the entire universe. And what have you done with all of their bones? We should be walking on mounds of bones.
The population of earth today does coincide however with Noah's family repopulating the earth forty three hundred years ago.

 

[Two Thumbs]

to prove evolution, you would have to explain how; rock + water + random lighting = life

life that has something to live on
that can become something else with a mate
then learn to stop breathing water and learn to breath air, and find a mate

 

[Chuckt]

envision the process of Evolution more vividly?

Link:Tiktaalik, Good example of a transitional fossil

Transitional fossils are the "missing links" everyone wants to see as evidence even though DNA sequencing is probably purer scientific support for the theory. Apparently the discovery of fossil remains of the hind limbs were the biggest surprise , being much more advanced towards tetrapodal development than previously guessed at.

I think you will see transitional forms on Transformers 4: Age of Extinction.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Can't help wonder how Noah got over 5 million different species on board the Ark. x2=10,000,000+ individuals. If you don't allow for evolution at least post-flood impossible!

 

[daws101]

Can't help wonder how Noah got over 5 million different species on board the Ark. x2=10,000,000+ individuals. If you don't allow for evolution at least post-flood impossible!

hey sb these folks wouldn't even attempt to accept any part of evolution.
it would collapse their house of cards..
you could try this: what if evolution was the process god used....they have no evidence to disprove it.

 

[westwall]

Can't help wonder how Noah got over 5 million different species on board the Ark. x2=10,000,000+ individuals. If you don't allow for evolution at least post-flood impossible!

hey sb these folks wouldn't even attempt to accept any part of evolution.
it would collapse their house of cards..
you could try this: what if evolution was the process god used....they have no evidence to disprove it.

That's one segment of the intelligent design story I've heard from some. God sets it all in motion then sits back and lets evolution run.

As they say, "who knows how long a day is, in God time."

 

[daws101]

Can't help wonder how Noah got over 5 million different species on board the Ark. x2=10,000,000+ individuals. If you don't allow for evolution at least post-flood impossible!

hey sb these folks wouldn't even attempt to accept any part of evolution.
it would collapse their house of cards..
you could try this: what if evolution was the process god used....they have no evidence to disprove it.

That's one segment of the intelligent design story I've heard from some. God sets it all in motion then sits back and lets evolution run.

As they say, "who knows how long a day is, in God time."

ah that far older then Id
our holy roller baptist preacher was saying that in the 60's in Georgia of all places...
the other is a rationalization...

 

[SmedlyButler]

Most Evangelicals just won't give up that +/-6000 yr timeline. And you run into "Irreducible Complexity" all over the religious map. There are some Christian Astronomers I've heard who accept the billions of years they have to deal with and shoehorn them adroitly into the Genesis account by fiddling with the length of the "lord's day". If they're debating an Evangelical they'll be open to the charge of heresy. Some of the debates are highly informative as well as entertaining.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

envision the process of Evolution more vividly?

Link:Tiktaalik, Good example of a transitional fossil

Transitional fossils are the "missing links" everyone wants to see as evidence even though DNA sequencing is probably purer scientific support for the theory. Apparently the discovery of fossil remains of the hind limbs were the biggest surprise , being much more advanced towards tetrapodal development than previously guessed at.

Does this help you understand why I know you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?



Stop pretending that an artists conception based on a fossil of a partial skeleton proves something and I won't have to make you look like the idiot you are.

 

[Indeependent]

envision the process of Evolution more vividly?

Link:Tiktaalik, Good example of a transitional fossil

Transitional fossils are the "missing links" everyone wants to see as evidence even though DNA sequencing is probably purer scientific support for the theory. Apparently the discovery of fossil remains of the hind limbs were the biggest surprise , being much more advanced towards tetrapodal development than previously guessed at.

Does this help you understand why I know you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?



Stop pretending that an artists conception based on a fossil of a partial skeleton proves something and I won't have to make you look like the idiot you are.

If Wall Street can conjure up investments with pieces of nothing why can't evolutionists?

 

[House]

I just don't get why people are so hung up on either/or. Who is to say that both aren't true?

We do not create anything, we use tools to make something from other materials. Why is it so difficult to believe that evolution may have been a tool crafted by God to serve as the engine of life?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just don't get why people are so hung up on either/or. Who is to say that both aren't true?

We do not create anything, we use tools to make something from other materials. Why is it so difficult to believe that evolution may have been a tool crafted by God to serve as the engine of life?

I don't mind the people who believe in creationism nearly as much as I do the idiots who treat evolution as a religion. If you want to argue in defense of something at least know enough about it not to believe the headline of a popular science blog.

 

[Avatar4321]

I just don't get why people are so hung up on either/or. Who is to say that both aren't true?

We do not create anything, we use tools to make something from other materials. Why is it so difficult to believe that evolution may have been a tool crafted by God to serve as the engine of life?

I agree. I've never found evolution and the scriptures to be mutually exclusive.

And i dont think anyone has a problem understanding evolution. Some just choose not to believe it.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Well Windbag...what can I say. It's not like I made this shit up.
I don't know why science makes you so angry. And yes modeling of a fossil into a lifelike rendition is a science unto itself. I'm sure you've seen the process on CSI type shows. I'm just going to paste this whole article for anybody that's interested. BTW what was the video of the walking shark supposed to prove or disprove?

How we bring fossils 'back to life'
By Adam S. Smith
"When you see a drawing or model of a dinosaur, or even a 'live' one in a movie, how do you know that that is what they really looked like? Well, here is how it's done.

The first step in restoring the life appearance of any prehistoric creature is to discover its fossil remains. These fossils are usually made up of just the hard parts such as bone and shell, although special conditions do very rarely preserve soft parts. Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives. This gives us a good idea of what the missing parts of the animal looked like. For example we have a large number of complete fossils of Tyrannoaurus. If a new type of tyrannosaur is found with just a few bones, we may not know exactly what it looked like, but based on Tyrannosaurus we will have a very good idea of the shapes, size and numbers of the missing bones.

Sometimes complete skeletons are found, which makes this process much simpler, and if the bones are all articulated (joined together as they were in life so the feet are attached to the legs and the legs to the hips etc.) this is even easier. The natural posture of the animal can be determined by articulating each bone in the skeleton relative to the next. Computer simulations also allow palaeontologists to calculate the most balanced stance.

The skeletal reconstruction can be accomplished in two dimensions such as in an illustration of all the bones, or in three dimensions - the most obvious and striking examples of reconstructed skeletons can be seen on display in museums. Sometimes these mounted skeletons are genuine fossils, but often they are casts taken from the fossil bones - these are much lighter and easier to construct, and this also allows the real bones to be safely stored for protection and scientific investigation.

The next step is to reconstruct the muscles of the body around the skeleton. The position and size of the muscles can be determined by looking at the muscles of living animals, and their position and size is also indicated by scars and bumps on the fossil bones where the muscles once attached. The dinosaur is now ready to put on its skin. The skin texture is sometimes known from rare fossil impressions, but the colour is almost entirely guesswork. However, it is important to think about where the creature lived and how it may have behaved -many animals are camouflaged to their surrounding, so maybe animals from a desert were yellow whereas forest-dwelling animals were green. There are other subtle details to take into account at this stage, such as the type of eye and tongue. These features can be reconstructed with some confidence by looking at the closest living relatives of the prehistoric animal.

It is possible to stop here, but we can go a step further and figure out how the animal moved and sounded. Indeed, the most complete restorations or prehistoric animals are 3D mechanical creations, and computer generated 3D animations, such as those seen in 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. Fossil footprints provide good evidence for gait and posture, and when combined with an understanding of the flexibility and strength of joints, the fossil organisms can finally be brought back to life."

 

[House]

wall-o-boring

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well Windbag...what can say. It's not like I made this shit up.

I am not saying you made it up, I am saying you are gullible and stupid.

I don't know why science makes you so angry. And yes modeling of a fossil into a lifelike rendition is a science unto itself. I'm sure you've seen the process on CSI type shows. I'm just going to paste this whole article for anybody that's interested. BTW what was the video of the walking shark supposed to prove or disprove?

Science doesn't make me angry, calling a fossil transitional even though there are living examples of the exact same thing is ignorant.

I even provided a video because I know you have trouble actually reading.

From your link.

“It’s reasonable to suppose with those big fin rays that Tiktaalik roseae used its hind fins to swim like a paddle. But it’s possible it could walk with them as well. African lungfish living today have similarly large pelves, and we showed in 2011 that they walk underwater on the bottom,” Prof Shubin said.

The rest of your post just makes my point for me.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Actually they are not even close to "exactly the same thing". That walking shark is cartilaginous and tetrapods have skeletons. An evolutionary biologist might call them good examples of convergent evolution. And you do know that scientists labeled this a transitional species and not I don't you? So that would make those scientists ignorant and me gullible? Also some people call extant species that resemble a long extinct animal "Living Fossils" They're quite common.

You seem to have anger issues, has anyone ever suggested therapy? Have to watch that blood pressure you know.

 

[westwall]

Well Windbag...what can say. It's not like I made this shit up.
I don't know why science makes you so angry. And yes modeling of a fossil into a lifelike rendition is a science unto itself. I'm sure you've seen the process on CSI type shows. I'm just going to paste this whole article for anybody that's interested. BTW what was the video of the walking shark supposed to prove or disprove?

How we bring fossils 'back to life'
By Adam S. Smith
"When you see a drawing or model of a dinosaur, or even a 'live' one in a movie, how do you know that that is what they really looked like? Well, here is how it's done.

The first step in restoring the life appearance of any prehistoric creature is to discover its fossil remains. These fossils are usually made up of just the hard parts such as bone and shell, although special conditions do very rarely preserve soft parts. Once a fossil has been discovered, let's say of a dinosaur, the skeleton must then be reconstructed. This may be very difficult or very easy depending on how complete the remains are. Often only a few scrappy bones are preserved, so missing parts of the skeleton must be reconstructed by looking at close relatives. This gives us a good idea of what the missing parts of the animal looked like. For example we have a large number of complete fossils of Tyrannoaurus. If a new type of tyrannosaur is found with just a few bones, we may not know exactly what it looked like, but based on Tyrannosaurus we will have a very good idea of the shapes, size and numbers of the missing bones.

Sometimes complete skeletons are found, which makes this process much simpler, and if the bones are all articulated (joined together as they were in life so the feet are attached to the legs and the legs to the hips etc.) this is even easier. The natural posture of the animal can be determined by articulating each bone in the skeleton relative to the next. Computer simulations also allow palaeontologists to calculate the most balanced stance.

The skeletal reconstruction can be accomplished in two dimensions such as in an illustration of all the bones, or in three dimensions - the most obvious and striking examples of reconstructed skeletons can be seen on display in museums. Sometimes these mounted skeletons are genuine fossils, but often they are casts taken from the fossil bones - these are much lighter and easier to construct, and this also allows the real bones to be safely stored for protection and scientific investigation.

The next step is to reconstruct the muscles of the body around the skeleton. The position and size of the muscles can be determined by looking at the muscles of living animals, and their position and size is also indicated by scars and bumps on the fossil bones where the muscles once attached. The dinosaur is now ready to put on its skin. The skin texture is sometimes known from rare fossil impressions, but the colour is almost entirely guesswork. However, it is important to think about where the creature lived and how it may have behaved -many animals are camouflaged to their surrounding, so maybe animals from a desert were yellow whereas forest-dwelling animals were green. There are other subtle details to take into account at this stage, such as the type of eye and tongue. These features can be reconstructed with some confidence by looking at the closest living relatives of the prehistoric animal.

It is possible to stop here, but we can go a step further and figure out how the animal moved and sounded. Indeed, the most complete restorations or prehistoric animals are 3D mechanical creations, and computer generated 3D animations, such as those seen in 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. Fossil footprints provide good evidence for gait and posture, and when combined with an understanding of the flexibility and strength of joints, the fossil organisms can finally be brought back to life."

And, as we learn more, our representations become ever more accurate. I can remember when dinosaurs were thought to be slow moving cold blooded lizards. Now, we believe they were warm blooded, vibrant, fast and much more complex animals.

In fact there is one line of thought that believes the birds are descended from them.