I was just wondering....

Regarding your first point; I'm not arguing specifics here. I'm not saying every case of evolution that has been put forth is correct and indeed, I do not know enough about the reptile -> bird debate to argue for it properly. What I am arguing is that you cannot write off the entire theory on the basis of one example alone. Secondly, these fossils do fill museums so I don't know what you're getting at.

To your second post; Right, and this disproves what exactly? They found a skull that contradicted their prior findings... only to realise it was a fake. It's not like it suddenly disproved evolution in any capacity. Furthermore, that final line just demeans anything Pitman had to say through his name calling of the 'several times deluded' primatologists. Plus, if you're going to go and examine some paleoanthropological debates, it'd help not to use texts that are over 20 years old.

Smindas wrote:

Regarding your first point; I'm not arguing specifics here. I'm not saying every case of evolution that has been put forth is correct and indeed, I do not know enough about the reptile -> bird debate to argue for it properly. What I am arguing is that you cannot write off the entire theory on the basis of one example alone. Secondly, these fossils do fill museums so I don't know what you're getting at.

To your second post; Right, and this disproves what exactly? They found a skull that contradicted their prior findings... only to realise it was a fake. It's not like it suddenly disproved evolution in any capacity. Furthermore, that final line just demeans anything Pitman had to say through his name calling of the 'several times deluded' primatologists. Plus, if you're going to go and examine some paleoanthropological debates, it'd help not to use texts that are over 20 years old.

Quote :

What I am arguing is that you cannot write off the entire theory on the basis of one example alone.

I'm not i'm giving an example of lack of proof.

Quote :

Secondly, these fossils do fill museums so I don't know what you're getting at.

Fabricated maybe? Transitional proof that would end the debate once and for all??

Quote :

if you're going to go and examine some paleoanthropological debates, it'd help not to use texts that are over 20 years old

20 years is nothing in the realm of evolution. Frauds are frauds.

Quote :

It's not like it suddenly disproved evolution in any capacity. Furthermore, that final line just demeans anything Pitman had to say through his name calling of the 'several times deluded' primatologists.

They are the experts that write the science books.

Smindas wrote:

I can't say I'm familiar with the rat-thing to whale evolution (I think someone's being a bit facetious there),

I ain't making this up. Scientists claim that all whale species came for an animal not much larger than a dog.

I was fascinated by whales when I was seven to eights years old. I KNOW this is what they believe.

xyz wrote:

Smindas wrote:

I can't say I'm familiar with the rat-thing to whale evolution (I think someone's being a bit facetious there),

I ain't making this up. Scientists claim that all whale species came for an animal not much larger than a dog.

I was fascinated by whales when I was seven to eights years old. I KNOW this is what they believe.

What? I thought they said all land mammals came from ocean dwellers. So if the whale is a oceanic mammal then shouldn't it have preceded the land creatures? So i guess the frogs or whatever came to land then evolved to a rat like creature that then reentered the ocean and grew into a gigantic whale.

Troublezone wrote:

xyz wrote:

Smindas wrote:

I can't say I'm familiar with the rat-thing to whale evolution (I think someone's being a bit facetious there),

I ain't making this up. Scientists claim that all whale species came for an animal not much larger than a dog.

I was fascinated by whales when I was seven to eights years old. I KNOW this is what they believe.

What? I thought they said all land mammals came from ocean dwellers. So if the whale is a oceanic mammal then shouldn't it have preceded the land creatures? So i guess the frogs or whatever came to land then evolved to a rat like creature that then reentered the ocean and grew into a gigantic whale.

According to evolutionists, all life came for the sea. After dinosaurs died out over 65 million years ago, mammals became the dominant life form on earth. Then probably around 30-40 million years ago (for memory, don't quote me on it) the small dog like creature found a better food source in the oceans and slowly evolved into to animal at the top of the photo below:



It then continued to evolve into the giants that live in the ocean now.

So basically, an animal the size of a large dog evolved into an animal that is 100ft in length and weighs 150 tonnes (blue whale).

So it dog paddled in the ocean after it's prey? Does just being in contact with water change the genetic makeup of an animal?

Troublezone wrote:

So it dog paddled in the ocean after it's prey? Does just being in contact with water change the genetic makeup of an animal?

Yes

xyz wrote:

Smindas wrote:

I can't say I'm familiar with the rat-thing to whale evolution (I think someone's being a bit facetious there),

I ain't making this up. Scientists claim that all whale species came for an animal not much larger than a dog.

I was fascinated by whales when I was seven to eights years old. I KNOW this is what they believe.

So are you 9 years old, then? Because I just did some research, and this claim was put forth by one scientist just a year ago.

One thing, though. Why do many aquatic species breathe air?

Eyesore wrote:

xyz wrote:

Smindas wrote:

I can't say I'm familiar with the rat-thing to whale evolution (I think someone's being a bit facetious there),

I ain't making this up. Scientists claim that all whale species came for an animal not much larger than a dog.

I was fascinated by whales when I was seven to eights years old. I KNOW this is what they believe.

So are you 9 years old, then? Because I just did some research, and this claim was put forth by one scientist just a year ago.

No, this claim has been around for a long time. It's at least a decade old.

To call transitional phases of humans a form of evolution is misleading. There is nothing but homo-sapian features on those fossils and no changes in DNA is ever found. To believe in evolution is really a big leap of faith. No observable changes with no way to test in the laboratory leaves more questions then answers. Those who suggest we have huge amounts of fossil transitions never show a creature who can breathe underwater as well as above which at some point would be absolutely necessary. (I know you are going to bring in the lungfish, but there is no in between phase of this animal) Also there is never shown a creature with wings and arm/leg like appendages which we would expect to find. In fact over the 100's of millions of years needed we should expect to find layer after layer of in between phases yet we don't and it's actually a frustration to many evolutionists. And still unanswered is the question of how something came from nothing.

Eyesore wrote:

One thing, though. Why do many aquatic species breathe air?

Because they're mostly mammals and all species of every kind needs to breathe air. Actually every aquatic species is able to breathe air, it's just that their gills dry out when they are out of water, hence they use their gills to get oxygen from the water. If evolution was true, all whales/dolphins would have grown gills by now.

Whales have leg bones.

Just throwing that out there.

Schbopo wrote:

Whales have leg bones.

Just throwing that out there.

Yes, and they also feed their newborns milk. That's because they're mammals.

Quote :

If evolution was true, all whales/dolphins would have grown gills by now.

True.

Quote :

One thing, though. Why do many aquatic species breathe air?

If there is a creator which i do believe, maybe he likes diversity hence all the different flowers, people, animals, landscapes... dwelling in the ocean doesn't automatically mean you need gills.

Okay, I'm bowing out of this. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, but I can't help but think a lot of my arguments have just been brushed over or misconstrued heavily. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to stop you. Just learn more about the theory you're attempting to deconstruct before doing so.

Schbopo wrote:

Whales have leg bones.

Just throwing that out there.

Thanks for your imput...

Smindas wrote:

Okay, I'm bowing out of this. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, but I can't help but think a lot of my arguments have just been brushed over or misconstrued heavily. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to stop you. Just learn more about the theory you're attempting to deconstruct before doing so.

That's cool... to each his own.

No one answered why disease changes and become impervious to certain medicines. Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

Eyesore wrote:

No one answered why disease changes and become impervious to certain medicines. Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

I'm just a fat guy who likes cake, but isn't that a case of mutation? I'm honestly asking.

Eyesore wrote:

No one answered why disease changes and become impervious to certain medicines. Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

I think it's more of a adapting than evolving.

SpectreFate wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

No one answered why disease changes and become impervious to certain medicines. Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

I'm just a fat guy who likes cake, but isn't that a case of mutation? I'm honestly asking.

Yes it is spec, just like a animal within it's own species can do.

Troublezone wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

No one answered why disease changes and become impervious to certain medicines. Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

I think it's more of a adapting than evolving.

Exactly, it adapts to the medicine, and it's still a disease, not something new. Plus, that's at such a microscopic level, I mean the disease doesn't evolve into some living breathing new entity.

Think about using those roach killers like Raids to get rid of roaches. After a while, the roaches catch on and don't die like they used to because they adapt to the poison. The roaches don't evolve to some other type of species. Their immune system builds a resistance to the drug, and only those who are exposed to it for a while build the resistance and don't die off as easily.