If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

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

I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology. Biology does fine by itself. So, how did the fins become legs?

Many atheists claim evolution is about biology ... but evolution is irrelevant to biology.


... So, how did the fins become legs?

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.

you are unwilling to engage the mechananisms for change ...

metamorphosis is a purity of religion which biology the same as humanity only kid themselves as Bond that they would exist without its presence.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

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".

.
I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.

.

 

[forkup]

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?

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

 

[the_human_being]

Alright already. I claim I was created by God and you claim you came from a monkey. You have convinced me.

 

[james bond]

.

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".

.
I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.

.

I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.

 

[james bond]

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?

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

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".

.
I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.

.

I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.

.

I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.

. Bond



"These undifferentiated cells are then differentiated into cells which eventually form the new physical being".


tell us oh high and mighty where is your brain while you are transforming from an earthing to an aviast in search of your mate ?

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

.

 

[forkup]

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?

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

 

[xband]

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?

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

God did it!

 

[james bond]

.

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".

.
I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.

.

I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.

.

I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.

. Bond



"These undifferentiated cells are then differentiated into cells which eventually form the new physical being".


tell us oh high and mighty where is your brain while you are transforming from an earthing to an aviast in search of your mate ?

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

.

C U later Durwood. I mean Breezy.

 

[james bond]

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?

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils? Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories? Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"

So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx? People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. And the Piltdown Man.

I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.

Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps? Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?

As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy. According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there. I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines. However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting. Care to expound on Ardipithecus?

Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus. He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha. He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?). I guess you weren't able to catch that.

Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star















.

 

[forkup]

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?

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils? Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories? Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"

So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx? People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. And the Piltdown Man.

I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.

Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps? Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?

As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy. According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there. I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines. However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting. Care to expound on Ardipithecus?

Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus. He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha. He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?). I guess you weren't able to catch that.

Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star















.

You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing. If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.

 

[james bond]

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?

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils? Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories? Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"

So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx? People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. And the Piltdown Man.

I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.

Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps? Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?

As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy. According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there. I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines. However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting. Care to expound on Ardipithecus?

Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus. He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha. He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?). I guess you weren't able to catch that.

Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star















.

You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing. If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.

So, are you saying now that science does not have the answers? How can that be when evolution is a "fact?" Are you agreeing with me that evolution is not fact and that there are many questions and controversies about it? I think I have provided more facts to refute evolution. One of my key points has been evolution does not answer the questions and this is one of the key questions. Otherwise, let's continue to march forward.

I did no such thing of taking a sentence from Professor Lovejoy and running with it. It's the conclusion he came to. Why do I have to look up Ardi when we have the expert Prof. Lovejoy? Here's his paper if it will make you happy -- "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus" by C. Owen Lovejoy . If you can't read that, try here -- Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus | Science .

My link shows that the professor clarified his statements to the press. This is official because it's on the Kent State U website. I am giving you his statement that apes evolved from humans. Why can't this be a new direction for evolution? I'm not being facetious about this. Here is another news article clarifying Professor Lovejoy's stance for the less scientific-minded -- Study: Man did not evolve from apes .

I believe him when he says that Ardipitecus provides more information. From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. You continue to claim that Ardi was an ape-human. Where is your proof? Just like the tiktaalik, Ardi is a recreation to favor evolution of man evolving from apes.

The other thing I want to bring up is to question the tree of life in this situation. Here are the players. I am referring to the ape creatures. Evos like to call them apemen.

"Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged ‘apemen’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages,’ but overlap considerably. For example, the timespan of Homo sapiens fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of Homo erectus, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis, were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines. In fact, H. habilis is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and H. erectus fossils into this ‘taxonomic waste bin

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well. A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times. Instead of having descended from one another, scientists now use the term offshoots, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis."

There are even more hominids found which I won't list here due to space.

What I am getting at is after Ardi, your tree of life has become a very messy "bush." How do explain this? Perhaps Professor Lovejoy has the better theory.

And I'm not getting stuck on fins, because I'm theorizing just like you about tiktaalik to a whale. Why can't you accept that it's a valid question to research? Furthermore, nobody here understands how tiktaalik is supposed to have become a tetrapod and then the tetrapod into a whale from you explanations. Stick to the main point and please answer my questions.

 

[james bond]

Here are some creationist arguments to rebut the common arguments against a 7-day creation week. Yes, creationists can "science the sh*t outta things." Another atheist myth bites the dust. Atheists are wrong again.

Tree Rings as a Natural Clock
Evolutionist argues:
'We cannot date a worldwide flood 4,000 YBP [years before present] with bristlecone pine mountain trees 5,066 YBP still alive in California. And with continuous growth records of Sub-Boreal Pines and German Oak trees going back 11,490 YBP with cross matching for European trees. But this is just one kind of natural “clock.”'

Creationist replies:
'There are several fundamental problems with using tree rings as reliable natural clocks. Beyond the fact that more or less than one ring can be added to a tree per year, the main problem with using “dendrochronology” as a reliable natural clock, independent of other forms of calibration, is that matching rings from different pieces of wood isn’t remotely a dependable science. And, this has been known for some time now. In a 1986 paper, “Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series“, Yamaguchi recognized that overlapping tree rings from different trees tend to “auto correlate” or actually cross-match with each other in several different places within a tree-ring sequence. What he did to prove this is quite interesting. He took a 290-ring Douglas-fir log known, by historical methods, to date between AD 1482 and 1668 and demonstrated that it could cross-match in multiple different places within the Pacific Northwest Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence to give very good “t-values.” A t-value is given to a “wiggle-match” on the basis of a statistical analysis of the correspondence between two wood samples. This statistical assessment is done by computer which assigns high t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches and low t-values (below 3) to those with poor correspondence between the ring patterns. Amazingly, using such t-value analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different matches having a confidence level of greater than 99.9%. For example, Yamaguchi demonstrated that his log could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-overlapping. That means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any one of those six vastly different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence Radiocarbon Dating . Because of this fundamental problem, many of the most well-known tree-ring series are fatally flawed.'

'Should one expect tree-ring-growth patterns to produce genuine correspondences at the same historical dates when the climates (and in particular the micro-climates) of Ireland, England and Germany are so different? Clearly, dendrochronology, although possibly helpful for the dating of certain relative events, is nowhere near an exact science. In this line, consider the frustration of Rod A. Savidge, a professor of tree physiology/biochemistry, Forestry, and Environmental Management at the University of New Brunswick. He vented the following interesting comments regarding the science of dendrochronology, published in a Letter to the Editor in the New York Times, November of 2002:'

“As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology “research” . . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method.” - Rod Sadridge, PhD

 

[forkup]

View attachment 81399

-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils? Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories? Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"

So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx? People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. And the Piltdown Man.

I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.

Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps? Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?

As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy. According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there. I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines. However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting. Care to expound on Ardipithecus?

Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus. He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha. He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?). I guess you weren't able to catch that.

Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star















.

You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing. If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.

So, are you saying now that science does not have the answers? How can that be when evolution is a "fact?" Are you agreeing with me that evolution is not fact and that there are many questions and controversies about it? I think I have provided more facts to refute evolution. One of my key points has been evolution does not answer the questions and this is one of the key questions. Otherwise, let's continue to march forward.

I did no such thing of taking a sentence from Professor Lovejoy and running with it. It's the conclusion he came to. Why do I have to look up Ardi when we have the expert Prof. Lovejoy? Here's his paper if it will make you happy -- "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus" by C. Owen Lovejoy . If you can't read that, try here -- Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus | Science .

My link shows that the professor clarified his statements to the press. This is official because it's on the Kent State U website. I am giving you his statement that apes evolved from humans. Why can't this be a new direction for evolution? I'm not being facetious about this. Here is another news article clarifying Professor Lovejoy's stance for the less scientific-minded -- Study: Man did not evolve from apes .

I believe him when he says that Ardipitecus provides more information. From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. You continue to claim that Ardi was an ape-human. Where is your proof? Just like the tiktaalik, Ardi is a recreation to favor evolution of man evolving from apes.

The other thing I want to bring up is to question the tree of life in this situation. Here are the players. I am referring to the ape creatures. Evos like to call them apemen.

"Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged ‘apemen’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages,’ but overlap considerably. For example, the timespan of Homo sapiens fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of Homo erectus, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis, were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines. In fact, H. habilis is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and H. erectus fossils into this ‘taxonomic waste bin

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well. A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times. Instead of having descended from one another, scientists now use the term offshoots, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis."

There are even more hominids found which I won't list here due to space.

What I am getting at is after Ardi, your tree of life has become a very messy "bush." How do explain this? Perhaps Professor Lovejoy has the better theory.

And I'm not getting stuck on fins, because I'm theorizing just like you about tiktaalik to a whale. Why can't you accept that it's a valid question to research? Furthermore, nobody here understands how tiktaalik is supposed to have become a tetrapod and then the tetrapod into a whale from you explanations. Stick to the main point and please answer my questions.

I think you are a bit confused here. What do you think Lovejoy did for you? Say It didn't evolve from chimpanzee like apes? There are different types of apes then chimpanzees. At no point does he claim that Ardi didn't evolve from apes. In fact there is not a single scientist who claims we evolved from chimpanzees. Scientist only claims that we have a common ancestor. At most Ardi just puts the age when that ancestor existed back. This is completly inconsistent whith your claims as a young earth creationist.
This video features Lovejoy among other people, who worked on Ardi. They talk about millions of years not 6000. When they flesh out like they call it, Ardi looks like an ape, when they talk about it's foot they say how not human the fossil is. So my question again is, how does this fossil help you in the slightest???? Btw if you know about evolution at all, you would know that, just because a species split into subspecies doesn't mean the original species died out. So species coexisting, with the parent species isn't rare.
Your hypothesis about whales suck. Again whales evolved 325 million years after Tiktaalik. It evolved in a completely different location. We found the different fossils, to establisch the evolution of whales and how they evolved makes Tiktaalik impossible as the ancestor. That where your questions, now you answer mine.
After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

 

[BreezeWood]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

 

[forkup]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

They built what they think was the boat. It's on dry land. I'm pretty sure more then 8 ppl where involved in building it. How many species does it fit. Is there room to carry food and water for a year. How do they handle waist disposal and how do they prevent this?Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.
This is the biggest REAL wooden ship that ever existed and it's smaller then the size of the supposed ark. And like I said what we know of handling animals in zoo's we know that it takes many more people then 8 to take care of large numbers of zoo animals and that's on dry land. On the high seas more work is added to keep the boat seawhorty. In short there is no way that there where enough hours in the day for the 8 ppl to do it all.

 

[james bond]

The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago. The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006. Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears. Just crazy. To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline. Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik. This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938. We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story. For those interested, here is the story.



So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee. Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together. He does not think much information can be gleaned from it. Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it. Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape. The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated. I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi. Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link. Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information. Why don't you go from there? For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post. Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.

So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils? Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories? Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"

So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx? People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. And the Piltdown Man.

I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.

Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps? Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?

As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy. According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there. I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines. However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting. Care to expound on Ardipithecus?

Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus. He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha. He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?). I guess you weren't able to catch that.

Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star















.

You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing. If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.

So, are you saying now that science does not have the answers? How can that be when evolution is a "fact?" Are you agreeing with me that evolution is not fact and that there are many questions and controversies about it? I think I have provided more facts to refute evolution. One of my key points has been evolution does not answer the questions and this is one of the key questions. Otherwise, let's continue to march forward.

I did no such thing of taking a sentence from Professor Lovejoy and running with it. It's the conclusion he came to. Why do I have to look up Ardi when we have the expert Prof. Lovejoy? Here's his paper if it will make you happy -- "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus" by C. Owen Lovejoy . If you can't read that, try here -- Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus | Science .

My link shows that the professor clarified his statements to the press. This is official because it's on the Kent State U website. I am giving you his statement that apes evolved from humans. Why can't this be a new direction for evolution? I'm not being facetious about this. Here is another news article clarifying Professor Lovejoy's stance for the less scientific-minded -- Study: Man did not evolve from apes .

I believe him when he says that Ardipitecus provides more information. From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes. You continue to claim that Ardi was an ape-human. Where is your proof? Just like the tiktaalik, Ardi is a recreation to favor evolution of man evolving from apes.

The other thing I want to bring up is to question the tree of life in this situation. Here are the players. I am referring to the ape creatures. Evos like to call them apemen.

"Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged ‘apemen’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages,’ but overlap considerably. For example, the timespan of Homo sapiens fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of Homo erectus, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis, were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines. In fact, H. habilis is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and H. erectus fossils into this ‘taxonomic waste bin

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well. A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times. Instead of having descended from one another, scientists now use the term offshoots, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis."

There are even more hominids found which I won't list here due to space.

What I am getting at is after Ardi, your tree of life has become a very messy "bush." How do explain this? Perhaps Professor Lovejoy has the better theory.

And I'm not getting stuck on fins, because I'm theorizing just like you about tiktaalik to a whale. Why can't you accept that it's a valid question to research? Furthermore, nobody here understands how tiktaalik is supposed to have become a tetrapod and then the tetrapod into a whale from you explanations. Stick to the main point and please answer my questions.

I think you are a bit confused here. What do you think Lovejoy did for you? Say It didn't evolve from chimpanzee like apes? There are different types of apes then chimpanzees. At no point does he claim that Ardi didn't evolve from apes. In fact there is not a single scientist who claims we evolved from chimpanzees. Scientist only claims that we have a common ancestor. At most Ardi just puts the age when that ancestor existed back. This is completly inconsistent whith your claims as a young earth creationist.
This video features Lovejoy among other people, who worked on Ardi. They talk about millions of years not 6000. When they flesh out like they call it, Ardi looks like an ape, when they talk about it's foot they say how not human the fossil is. So my question again is, how does this fossil help you in the slightest???? Btw if you know about evolution at all, you would know that, just because a species split into subspecies doesn't mean the original species died out. So species coexisting, with the parent species isn't rare.
Your hypothesis about whales suck. Again whales evolved 325 million years after Tiktaalik. It evolved in a completely different location. We found the different fossils, to establisch the evolution of whales and how they evolved makes Tiktaalik impossible as the ancestor. That where your questions, now you answer mine.
After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

My answers in blue. I think you are just glossing over what I presented and neglected to answer my questions which I'll post again below. One is Lucy was just a 3' tall chimp. There wasn't enough information there to claim "apeman." If you still want to make a case for Lucy, we can get into the man who found it, Don Johanson. Next, Ardi which came 100 million years before Lucy and it provides more information. It makes Lucy obsolete. I'll look over your video, but suspect it will be more fitting the facts to the theory and doctoring the evidence to make it more like an apeman. The evos have been caught several times already as my apes-to-man infograph pointed out.

I have been answering your question all along, but you apparently cannot accept the truth or the criticisms of evolution. Evolution does not answer all the questions. It is you and the evolutionists making these far-out claims such as humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs. It is why we are delving in-depth to the evolution beginnings. It is why they are full of contradictions.

In a nutshell, here is what the creation scientists concluded about the so-called apemen,
"There are tremendous morphological distinctions between apes and mankind. These are predominantly due to the differences in cognitive ability (skull size), and the skeletal-muscular design permitting bipedal movement and balance in humans.

Most creationists argue that the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of fossil evidence. Three approaches may account for all of the attempts by evolutionists to fill the unbridged gap between apes and men with fossil apemen.

1. Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
2. Emphasize certain human-like qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more human-like.
3. Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.[2]
Malcolm Bowden echoes this view:

“ It must be emphasised that where there is sufficient evidence, ALL skulls can be identified as being either ape or human. There are NO other classes, for they are all the imaginings of the evolutionary paleaoanthropologists who insist on concocting a string of links between man and apes. In order to fill this enormous gap, any ape skull is greatly enlarged and the fossil's 'human' features exaggerated (e.g. Pekin man and 'Lucy'), whilst human skulls are decreased and their 'ape' features are similarly emphasised (e.g. 1470 Man).”

To distinguish fossil apes from humans, Malcolm Bowden recommends using the following general characteristics. For a fossil skull to be identified as human it should have a fairly large brain capacity - over 1,000 cc's, and a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose. Apes, by contrast, have a smaller brain capacity and a protruding muzzle. However, he warns that fossils and reconstructions are often interpreted and distorted to meet evolutionary expectations. It can be frequently found that ape skulls are 'adjusted' to look more human, and human skulls often rebuilt to emphasize 'ape-like' features.

My whales hypothesis just goes to show that you are just parroting what the evos tell you, and your answer lacks depth. You'll have to explain it further to me and the people here. It does invole Tiktaalik because how did it go from Tiktaalik to tetrapod? What happened after that? Please explain using the infographs I posted from evolution.berkeley.edu. Furthermore, no reply to the lungfish (again part of the inforgraph) which you claim is a transitional form and I pointed out it's still living? That already shows that the millions of years old is wrong.

Next, you're bringing up Noah's Flood. For that, we have Ark Encounter now which opened July 7th. Why not let them answer it? I can point you to another website that is very detailed, but you're not going to read it. The key point about Noah is after the Flood, this is where the primitive humans begin to show up. Not apemen. We went from ancient humans that live 900 years to humans that live 120. Remember, all the different hominids I posted in the post before this one? This theory explains all of them. Evolution can't explain them all because many existed at the same time, so there is not a pattern of evolution. In fact, that's what I have been pointing out all along. There is no pattern of evolution. Just evo scientists shaping the evidence to fit their theories. If evolution was a fact, how can anyone use tiktaalik to tetrapod? Most people do not know tiktaalik. The only thing I've see is the fish with feet logo ha ha. If it was a fact, its use would be more widespread like Genesis which almost everyone here is familiar with even though they may not agree. The Bible has sold over 5 billion copies and it is the best selling non-fiction book per Guinness Book of World Records.

So, I have been answering your questions all along. Perhaps, you just missed the answers or just became too emotional since it questions and starts to destroy your worldview with cogent arguments and facts to which evolutionists have no reply.

 

[james bond]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

 

[forkup]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

I won't answer your wrong assumptions until you can provide a workable model for the objections I put out to the ark, building it was only 1, and by no means my largest problem.