If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

 

[BreezeWood]

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes. This is true. A small difference can produce something altogether different. What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution. It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't. We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer? The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation. There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point. A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

.

It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.

It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.

then there would be evidence of it everywhere

this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...


I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.

the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.

A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

This is true. Flew became a deist. He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it. He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along. I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

two distinct creatures in real time that evolve one to the other without an interval and if you had read the post the explanation for how it occurred.

I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

up to this point I was spellbound then entered reality.

.

 

[Lutroo]

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes. This is true. A small difference can produce something altogether different. What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution. It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't. We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer? The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation. There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point. A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

.

It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.

It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.

then there would be evidence of it everywhere

this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...


I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.

the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.

A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

This is true. Flew became a deist. He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it. He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along. I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

two distinct creatures in real time that evolve one to the other without an interval and if you had read the post the explanation for how it occurred.

I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

up to this point I was spellbound then entered reality.

.

Sorry, but that is not two creatures. It's one. That's like saying that maggots and flies are two different creatures. Same with a caterpillar and a butterfly. I think you are confused.

 

[forkup]

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes. This is true. A small difference can produce something altogether different. What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution. It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't. We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer? The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation. There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point. A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

.

It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.

It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.

then there would be evidence of it everywhere

this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...


I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.

the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.

A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

This is true. Flew became a deist. He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it. He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along. I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

two distinct creatures in real time that evolve one to the other without an interval and if you had read the post the explanation for how it occurred.

I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

up to this point I was spellbound then entered reality.

.

Sorry, but that is not two creatures. It's one. That's like saying that maggots and flies are two different creatures. Same with a caterpillar and a butterfly. I think you are confused.

.

Sorry, but that is not two creatures. It's one. That's like saying that maggots and flies are two different creatures. Same with a caterpillar and a butterfly. I think you are confused.

I did not say they were two different creatures, they are the same creature one (changing) to another and demonstrates natures ability to change without intermittent steps (transitional fossil) - the same as one creatures stored program for change can occur in a single step from one species to create a new one - from Ape to Homo Sapien.

the example is an indisputable real time event.

Homo sapiens | Becoming Human

Homo sapiens

The latest chapter of human evolution begins with the emergence of Homo sapiens. The anatomy of Homo sapiens is unique among hominin species and appears first in East Africa, dating to roughly 160 thousand years ago (ka). These unique features—including changes in the skull and postcranial skeleton (skeleton minus skull)—suggest changes in brain size and architecture and an adaptation to tropical environments. These anatomical changes are linked to cognitive and behavioral changes that are equally unique among hominin species. In particular, the archaeological evidence of behaviors thought to be unique to Homo sapiens, which appear first in Africa around 170 ka, highlight the importance of symbolism, complex cognitive behaviors, and a broad subsistence strategy (the strategy used to procure food).

The anatomy of Homo sapiens is unique among hominin species and appears first in East Africa, dating to roughly 160 thousand years ago.


160 thousand years ago a single predecessor with the functioning Spiritual software evolved through its offspring a (new) Homo Sapien species from a single birth.

.

 

[james bond]

I did not say they were two different creatures, they are the same creature one (changing) to another and demonstrates natures ability to change without intermittent steps (transitional fossil) - the same as one creatures stored program for change can occur in a single step from one species to create a new one - from Ape to Homo Sapien.

So, the ape shell split open and man popped out. Ha ha. You're hilarious.

 

[james bond]

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

 

[forkup]

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

 

[BreezeWood]

I did not say they were two different creatures, they are the same creature one (changing) to another and demonstrates natures ability to change without intermittent steps (transitional fossil) - the same as one creatures stored program for change can occur in a single step from one species to create a new one - from Ape to Homo Sapien.

So, the ape shell split open and man popped out. Ha ha. You're hilarious.

.

So, the ape shell split open and man popped out. Ha ha. You're hilarious.

You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader.

and a fear for what isn't written for you, Bond ... and a true understanding for the dynamics of nature, The Triumph of Good vs Evil, the real quest to accomplish Admission to Everlasting.

.

 

[james bond]

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

It's what I have been pointing out all along about these "transitional forms," and that is there has been questionable hypothesis to outright fraud. There really isn't any transitional forms. Instead, you present evidence for these forms like it should be accepted and everyone should know. C'mon, now you're claiming the whale came from tiktaalik which became man and at the same time it went back to the sea and became a whale. Talk about buying something hook, line and sinker. When I read this originally on the evo website, I thought if was a "fish story."

 

[forkup]

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

 

[james bond]

Ha ha. Jeez Louise. I think you made my point. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos. That's what they claim this fish had. Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that? They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil. Then they claimed it was billions of years old. What kind of fish story is that? It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh. Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish. And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster. Thank you, forkup, you made my day.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

 

[james bond]

You know, I never was that interested in whales and would not go whale watching, but after the discussion of the tiktaalik and tetrapod, I'm willing to go.

 

[forkup]

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.

 

[BreezeWood]

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't claim that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

.

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>

So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>

because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm

The study, published in the journal Nature, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.

The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.



life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...

- the above is a clear reference for evolution


Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...

.......

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.


Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.

.

 

[james bond]

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.

Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again. Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms? All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist. I should add the lungfish since I found they exist. Where does it lead? The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists. Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive? Because it does not show a walking million years old fish! Ding, ding, ding, We have a winner!!! The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.

Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil? The lungfish is just a fish. They will not evolve into humans. We know its alive, so where is the evidence? The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are. The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales? This was from two or three posts ago. Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?

I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales. Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs. If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims. Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.

I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence? The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution. I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms. Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that. I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology. Biology does fine by itself. So, how did the fins become legs?

 

[james bond]

Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning. A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant. Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution. All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE. They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik. It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik

Killer Whate

(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions. Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

.

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>

So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>

because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm

The study, published in the journal Nature, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.

The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.



life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...

- the above is a clear reference for evolution


Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...

.......

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.


Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.

.

Ha ha. What happened to the biology? Many atheists claim evolution is about biology.

 

[IndependantAce]

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

.

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>

So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>

because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm

The study, published in the journal Nature, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.

The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.



life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...

- the above is a clear reference for evolution


Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...

.......

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.


Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.

.

Ha ha. What happened to the biology? Many atheists claim evolution is about biology.

Not to mention the nonsense about "life evolving by random chance" isn't even science - there's no biological concept of "randomness", it's just a silly philosophy pretending to be science, far sillier even than any notion of a "talking snake".

 

[forkup]

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However

This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.

Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again. Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms? All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist. I should add the lungfish since I found they exist. Where does it lead? The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists. Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive? Because it does not show a walking million years old fish! Ding, ding, ding, We have a winner!!! The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.

Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil? The lungfish is just a fish. They will not evolve into humans. We know its alive, so where is the evidence? The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are. The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales? This was from two or three posts ago. Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?

I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales. Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs. If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims. Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.

I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence? The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution. I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms. Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that. I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology. Biology does fine by itself. So, how did the fins become legs?

Yup we are in wonderland.

This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.

 

[james bond]

Why are you getting upset? You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth. In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence. First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist. There has been no fish found to have such anatomy. You even tried and failed to make fun of it. Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish. I showed you the evidence for it being a fish. That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched. If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph. Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped. However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales. Why didn't the evos think that? We know that's not what the evos claim. Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms. It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales. Oh brother. How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement? More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms. There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc. Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.

This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.

Thank you for your admission. I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist. Let's stop and examine this for a moment. If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod? If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods. Wouldn't there? There would be more living tetrapods. Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth. The others are supposed to be extinct. So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods. So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human. This is sketchy. Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo? Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.

The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus. However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod. Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it? God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.

Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.

Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again. Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms? All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist. I should add the lungfish since I found they exist. Where does it lead? The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists. Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive? Because it does not show a walking million years old fish! Ding, ding, ding, We have a winner!!! The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.

Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil? The lungfish is just a fish. They will not evolve into humans. We know its alive, so where is the evidence? The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are. The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales? This was from two or three posts ago. Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?

I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales. Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs. If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims. Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.

I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence? The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution. I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms. Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that. I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology. Biology does fine by itself. So, how did the fins become legs?

Yup we are in wonderland.

This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.

I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms. Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct. Is that another error?

In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form. Another one bites the dust.

So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b? And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph? Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence. There is no hand.

And why do you think this means tetrapod? You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale? Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?

All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.

BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp. The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail . Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?