Eightcrackers
Well-known member
What proof would you accept?I bet you can not prove your point?
Any?
What proof would you accept?I bet you can not prove your point?
As idiotic asThe giant panda and the red panda are similar enough to both be called pandas.
You conflate homology of name, with homology of phenotype.Homology isn't evidence for evolutionism.
You think that's what i was talking about? A name?As idiotic as
"the spider monkey and the spider are similar enough to both be called spiders"
You conflate homology of name, with homology of phenotype.
Why would you expect we would find anything close to a quarter or half of them?What I am giving you a break as there actually should of been untold quadrillions of the missing link type fossils and you could find a quarter to half of them at the rate they find current fossils they have.
The number of fossils that survive depends on the number of fossils that get made.You have any idea of how many fossils survive out of every million fossils?
Exactly that is the point and even if we only find a quarter of them, then out of the quadrillions there would have been we should find so many trillions of them.Why would you expect we would find anything close to a quarter or half of them?
The number of fossils that survive depends on the number of fossils that get made.
The number of fossils that survive is not equal to the number of fossils we find.
I'm asking you why there is a reason we should expect to find a quarter of them, or anything remotely close to a quarter?Exactly that is the point and even if we only find a quarter of them, then out of the quadrillions there would have been we should find so many trillions of them.
You just admitted that individuals evolve because you admit that they have to be different from their parents. Or as the individuals evolve they are different from their parents.It's your point. You are claiming that evolution is wrong because it cannot show individual organisms evolving. Evolution doesn't claim that individual organisms evolve. You will not find any scientists claim that individuals evolve. No teacher teaches that individuals evolve. It's a non- issue. Evolution doesn't require individuals to evolve. All it requires is that individuals are slightly different from their parents and that the environment in which they live changes slowly over time. Both these requirements are obviously true. Where on earth did you get the motion that individuals evolve? Go back to your source and explain that they are talking gibberish.
Because they lived and died with the ones that are found and since they are about the same they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate. Meaning like Darwin said the earth should be scattered with a great number of them.I'm asking you why there is a reason we should expect to find a quarter of them, or anything remotely close to a quarter?
And you are admitting those steps end up in similarities only.Evolution results from those similarities, which add together over time, as directed by natural selection. Each generation the average length of the neck gets a little bigger, and you end up with a giraffe. Each generation the nose gets a bit longer and you end up with an elephant's trunk.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Evolution is the same; a lot of single steps adds up to a thousand miles.
And, again, I'm asking you, why is that rate about a quarter, instead of and eighth, or 1-eight-millionth, or 1-eighth-billionth, etc? Show your work! Let's see some numbers - even estimates - that lead you to that quarter. Otherwise, you're just making it up.Because they lived and died with the ones that are found and since they are about the same they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate. Meaning like Darwin said the earth should be scattered with a great number of them.
There are both similarities and differences. Every part of a human occurs in a chimpanzee, though the proportions are different. Both have inherited those parts from a primate common ancestor. They have even inherited the same errors in their genomes, for instance the gulonase pseudogene, which makes most primates susceptible to vitamin-C deficiency. That broken gene means we cannot make our own, but have to eat it.And you are admitting those steps end up in similarities only.
I just told you why and because they were the same skeletal wise that they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate as the one's that are found. Since the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the other one's that are found you would say the evidence says a lot more of the transitional one's would be found.And, again, I'm asking you, why is that rate about a quarter, instead of and eighth, or 1-eight-millionth, or 1-eighth-billionth, etc? Show your work! Let's see some numbers - even estimates - that lead you to that quarter. Otherwise, you're just making it up.
Evolution is the change of SPECIES over time as a result of imperfect replication and natural selection bringing about a build up of beneficial mutations in the gene pool. The genes of an individual do not change over time.You just admitted that individuals evolve because you admit that they have to be different from their parents. Or as the individuals evolve they are different from their parents.
OK, so you have no numbers to calculate your quarter. Your quarter is numerical, but not the result of any calculation. So it's a meaningless number.I just told you why and because they were the same skeletal wise that they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate as the one's that are found. Since the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the other one's that are found you would say the evidence says a lot more of the transitional one's would be found.
But you understand the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the one's they evolved from and the one's they would have evolved into?OK, so you have no numbers to calculate your quarter. Your quarter is numerical, but not the result of any calculation. So it's a meaningless number.
No, because one problem is that *every* species is a transitional species in evolution.But you understand the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the one's they evolved from and the one's they would have evolved into?
So you have no comment - not even a rejoinder - about making up a meaningless number and passing that off as part of an intellectually honest conversation?But you understand the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the one's they evolved from and the one's they would have evolved into?
I'll need to know what you mean by "show." Do you want me to post a link to an article or a video? I've found a ton of good material on cell evolution online.Show me...
Cells must have evolved because geologists have found that early in earth history there were no cells and no life on our planet. Cells begin to appear later in the geologic record. They must have developed gradually from chemicals that included elements like carbon and oxygen. What proto-life survived this process became what we would recognize as cells and life....how an assembly of organelle evolves via a process of evolutionism...
I started it. I'll stay as long as I reasonably can.....or kindly give up on this thread.
No you have a meaningless number as my numbers would be correct that there would have been a lot more transitional one's who died and thus you should find a greater number of fossils from them than the one's that are found. I am being honest.So you have no comment - not even a rejoinder - about making up a meaningless number and passing that off as part of an intellectually honest conversation?
At some point even if the changes were small you would have had one's that were 50/50 or half one species and half the other species and all the other stages in evolution.No, because one problem is that *every* species is a transitional species in evolution.