Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[Mac-7]

No, we are perfectly fine with creationism. I.E., evolution is how it happened. Science is the study of rhe universe, and saying "but mah Gawd did it" doesn't get in the way of anything at all.

I dont believe in the sort of dumb luck evolution that you are referring to

Molecules just crashing into each other till complex life emerged

It took the hand of God to make all of this happen

 

[ding]

Doesn't seem like radical changes are required to change from dinos to birds.

Where are the slight changes? That is what we are debating, right?

Thank you for proving my point that there are no slight successive changes like the beaks of Darwin's finches.

 

[Mac-7]

We have trillions of fossils and every one supports the theory of evolution. If that makes religious people uncomfortable, that is on them since it is the reality of the world. If a God created it, that is how He did it. You may say creationism or intelligent design but you're only saying that you don't know how we came to be.

See post #81

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

dont believe in the sort of dumb luck evolution that you are referring to

Good, because I and scientists don't either. You are confused about evolution. Selection is precisely the opposite of "random".

So it appears your doubt arises from a fundamental misunderstanding, and you need to throw away what you know about evolution and re-learn the topic.

And yes, you can still say God did it. That is useless and explains nothing, but it also does not conflict with anything.

 

[ding]

Doesn't seem like radical changes are required to change from dinos to birds.

Those don't look like the slight successive changes of the beaks of Darwin's finches to me, bro. Those look like pretty big changes to me.

You are killing your own argument here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those don't look like the slight successive changes of the beaks of Darwin's finches to me, bro. Those look like pretty big changes to me.

You are killing your own argument here.

Looks pretty slight to me. I don't see any new limbs... I see the same body models in roughly the same proportions. No fins or gills. No starfish shapes. No lost backbones. No gained thrid eyes, no lost tails, bones in the same places in roughly the same shapes.

 

[ding]

Looks pretty slight to me. I don't see any new limbs... I see the same body models in roughly the same proportions. No fins or gills. No starfish shapes. No lost backbones. No gained thrid eyes, no lost tails, bones in the same places in roughly the same shapes.

Yes, it totally looks like subtle changes in beaks to me too.

You do realize that Darwin's ideas about how traits were passed down were completely wrong, right? He had no knowledge of genes or genetics. And it was his belief on how traits were passed down (which were completely wrong) which served as the foundation for his theory of slight successive changes leading to vastly different new species.

 

[alang1216]

Where are the slight changes? That is what we are debating, right?

Thank you for proving my point that there are no slight successive changes like the beaks of Darwin's finches.

"Slight" like "gradual" are relative terms so you should take care in throwing them around.

 

[alang1216]

See post #81

Evolution is not random.

 

[Mac-7]

Selection is precisely the opposite of "random"

No, its quite random

And impossible

If you spent a trillion years you could not accomplish what libs believe happened

 

[Mac-7]

Evolution is not random.

See post 90

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, it totally looks like subtle changes in beaks to me too.

That's your standard for "slight changes". Not mine. And obviously we're talking about different timeframe, here. Not just athe few years that Darwin observe finches

. So you see, "slight changes" gets pretty subjective.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, its quite random

False. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Selection is the opposite of random. This is a fundamental idea of evolution ,and it apparently eludes you. So again, I suggest you re-learn what you think you know about evolution.

Maybe, if you actually have factual information about evolutuon and have an actual understanding of evolutionary theory, you won't be so put off by it.

 

[alang1216]

See post 90

You were wrong there too. If you want to evolution in real time you can look at viruses like covid. They start with a set of genes but with lots variations. You get a vaccine and it kills 99.99% of the viruses but that 0.01% that survive pass their genes to the next generation. The population is now very different from what it was previously. Natural selection is anything but random.

 

[Mac-7]

You were wrong there too. If you want to evolution in real time you can look at viruses like covid. They start with a set of genes but with lots variations. You get a vaccine and it kills 99.99% of the viruses but that 0.01% that survive pass their genes to the next generation. The population is now very different from what it was previously. Natural selection is anything but random.

Do the virus’ become trees or fish or humans?

No

They just become a new virus

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do the virus’ become trees or fish or humans?

No

They just become a new virus

So? In the science section, you should actually make points and not make people ask you what your point is. That "I'm not saying I'm just saying" fact vomiting is for other sections of the board

 

[alang1216]

Do the virus’ become trees or fish or humans?

No

They just become a new virus

You're so impatient, just wait a few billion years and then talk. The point is, the process is not random.

 

[Mac-7]

You're so impatient, just wait a few billion years and then talk. The point is, the process is not random.

A trillion years is not enough time for what libs claim has happened

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A trillion years is not enough time for what libs claim has happened

Why is that? Or are you issuing divine decrees, now, shaman...?

Drop the "lib" label, you embarrass yourself.

 

[Mac-7]

Why is that? Or are you issuing divine decrees, now, shaman...?

Drop the "lib" label, you embarrass yourself.

Never the less evolution cannot explain creation