Remove this Banner Ad

Happy 200th Birthday Mr Darwin!

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Please. Don't insult me. I'm WAY better looking then Rawhead.


How come nobody has provided any prrof aprt from BomberGal who has dribbled on about some DNA being proof? Shouldn't it bea given that if it was fact we'd never have these conversations? Like the fact that cow's milk comes from cows? It's fact and even a 5yr old knows it.


Yet not one person on this thread has posted a factual form of evidence proving evolution. Why? Can't? Don't want to? Bored? Or just can't (again) because there isn't any?


Funny that isn't it. Far easy to say something pathetic like - "hey rawhead, you got owned".



Yeah that's a strong case aint it!
 
Fire Storm said:
Please. Don't insult me. I'm WAY better looking then Rawhead.


How come nobody has provided any prrof aprt from BomberGal who has dribbled on about some DNA being proof? Shouldn't it bea given that if it was fact we'd never have these conversations? Like the fact that cow's milk comes from cows? It's fact and even a 5yr old knows it.


Yet not one person on this thread has posted a factual form of evidence proving evolution. Why? Can't? Don't want to? Bored? Or just can't (again) because there isn't any?


Funny that isn't it. Far easy to say something pathetic like - "hey rawhead, you got owned".



Yeah that's a strong case aint it!
Click to expand...


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing....html?sid=6e64906a-5d8a-4091-b719-50f8a98b3eb5
 
Fire Storm said:
Having variety in finches aint evolution.


Try again.
Click to expand...

The article clearly details quantitative evidence for microevolution (by means of natural selection).
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

A finch is a finch, Pawtucket. That's not evolution. There's NO proof of ANY transitional species - plants or animals anywhere in time.


The fossil record has been studied and proven to support creation. Time and again. Not one species turning into another completely different species. Ever.


The one thing that stumped Darwin and every evolutionist since. Not one fossil record to prove it.
 
Fire Storm said:
A finch is a finch, Pawtucket. That's not evolution. There's NO proof of ANY transitional species - plants or animals anywhere in time.


The fossil record has been studied and proven to support creation. Time and again. Not one species turning into another completely different species. Ever.


The one thing that stumped Darwin and every evolutionist since. Not one fossil record to prove it.
Click to expand...

Microevolution is a form of evolution. What I think you are referring to is macroevolution (speciation).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6989/full/nature02556.html
 
A form of evolution? How many are there! Changes quicker then Melbourne's weather.

We all adapt to different conditions. Just like the peppered moth with many at one time claiming this was the moth evolving.


Nope.
 
Fire Storm said:
A form of evolution? How many are there! Changes quicker then Melbourne's weather.

We all adapt to different conditions. Just like the peppered moth with many at one time claiming this was the moth evolving.


Nope.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are different forms of evolution and if you were not aware there are also various theories as to the mechanisms controlling evolution (natural selection being the most rigorously tested).

As for the evidence for speciation (macroevolution);

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/abs/nature04789.html
 
No such thing as natural selction either.

More faniciful dreaming not backed up by scientific fact. Scientific evolution dreaming perhaps.



Let me guess, there's good reason why in a hundered million fossil records no tranistional species appear despite the fact that there should be? Let me guess, everyon'es just been digging in the wrong spot?
 
Fire Storm said:
No such thing as natural selction either.

More faniciful dreaming not backed up by scientific fact. Scientific evolution dreaming perhaps.



Let me guess, there's good reason why in a hundered million fossil records no tranistional species appear despite the fact that there should be? Let me guess, everyon'es just been digging in the wrong spot?
Click to expand...

This footage is from "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"

[YOUTUBE]vcJQ7-yT5N4[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
 
Are yes, the old Tiktaalik.

Your, um sure this is a transitional species? Or just a new species that hasn't been documented as much as others? Or made up like piltdown man and nethanderthal man?

Jennifer Clack even admitted this I believe: "Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods". Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., Palaeontology: A firm step from water to land, Nature 440(7085):747–749, 6 April 200


A few mexican walking fish clone fossils MAYBE could've been a link and a hundered million other fossils show NONE.



So your basing your belief on a maybe with no infomation and hundered million fossils that say creation? Interesting.



A bit like the newspaper report 6 months ago here in cairns that stated a link between chickens - yes chickens and dinosaurs. I kept reading and low and behold the scientist said there ISNT a direct link but stated the possiblities are there.

Like trying to make the square fit in the round hole or something like that?
 
Fire Storm said:
Are yes, the old Tiktaalik.

Your, um sure this is a transitional species? Or just a new species that hasn't been documented as much as others? Or made up like piltdown man and nethanderthal man?

Jennifer Clack even admitted this I believe: "Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods". Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., Palaeontology: A firm step from water to land, Nature 440(7085):747–749, 6 April 200


A few mexican walking fish clone fossils MAYBE could've been a link and a hundered million other fossils show NONE.



So your basing your belief on a maybe with no infomation and hundered million fossils that say creation? Interesting.



A bit like the newspaper report 6 months ago here in cairns that stated a link between chickens - yes chickens and dinosaurs. I kept reading and low and behold the scientist said there ISNT a direct link but stated the possiblities are there.

Like trying to make the square fit in the round hole or something like that?
Click to expand...


I was providing but one example of fossil evidence of transitional species. The above quote does nothing to refute the status of tiktaalik as a transitional species. Why would the fact that tiktaalik is a new species that has not been studied before be problematic for its status as a transitional species? The fraud that was piltdown man was exposed by scientists themselves. Unlike in the field of 'creationism', those that commit fraud in science are heavily penalised. I find it amazing that you can question the evidence for evolution when the only apparent evidence for creationism is a fictional book. Pot calling the kettle black, me thinks.
 
Who said it was a trasnsitional species? It's a species that COULD. Big difference.


A chimp isnt. An Ape isn't. A human isnt. But ape man IS. Or a fish with a half lizard head and no gills and four legs. And plenty of them.


This is still no evidence that it is only that it COULD.





By the way, who said the Bible is fictional? Archeologists have used it for reference to finding lost citys, so on. Just one small example.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Fire Storm said:
Who said it was a trasnsitional species? It's a species that COULD. Big difference.


A chimp isnt. An Ape isn't. A human isnt. But ape man IS. Or a fish with a half lizard head and no gills and four legs. And plenty of them.


This is still no evidence that it is only that it COULD.





By the way, who said the Bible is fictional? Archeologists have used it for reference to finding lost citys, so on. Just one small example.
Click to expand...

I agree that the concept of transitional species is problematic and, most probably, redundant as all species are transitional. The value of the term is questionable.

You are suggesting that the Bible is factual, but the evidence for evolution is not. I find this position untenable.
 
Fire Storm, you're weird.

Firstly, everything is a transitional species. Everything. To suggest you want something that is half one species, half another, is incredibly ignorant of the way biology works. Do you think a fish can breathe water without gills? No? Then why would you expect biology to create a fish with no gills and force it out onto land? It would be incredibly disadvantageous. Biology just DOES NOT work like that.

CAUTION: CLICKING THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES

Secondly, gaps exist in the fossil record because you cannot have 100% of organisms being preserved, and other than that, there ARE no 'major gaps' the way you think there are (i.e. they are not a problem for science because there are so many other kinds of evidence), and you are just asserting there are because you read such on crappy websites. Even when there are 'gaps' because the fossil record doesn't record everything, modern study of evolution and natural selection pretty much NEVER invokes the fossil record. I promise you.

Lastly, you're the one who 'stopped reading halfway through' so I don't see any reason we should take a thing you say seriously. After all, since you're closing your mind to evidence by not even reading it, what's the point of giving it?

I mean you're no different to the ****wits who think that evolution means that if we evolved from apes/chimps/monkeys (we evolved from none of these), why are there still apes/chimps/monkeys around? Seriously, grow another brain cell or two, and THEN we can discuss it. In the meantime, I've seen all your arguments before and quite frankly they give me a great laugh :D

http://www.talkorigins.org/

BTW, ape-man? Well, humans didn't evolve from apes, so it's a moot point, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taung_Child
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man

What do you want to see, hair all over their bodies? Oh that's right...hair isn't preserved on a skeleton.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom