How is it that the evolutionists . . .

[rexlunae]

How come the fossils in the rock strata show that while one group of species suddenly died out, another suddenly sprang into being?

What exactly are you referring to?

How is that possible? Let us see your evidence.

I will answer you if I can, if you can give me enough information about your premise, but with the following caveats:

1. I am not an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, geologist, or in any other way a specialist. My views don't represent the state of the science in any case, but my own personal understanding. You are likely better off reading Wikipedia if you are genuinely curious, or for that matter, a decent book on the subject, which given my experience with creationists thus far, seems unlikely.
2. I will only put as much effort into answering as you evince in asking. I'm not going to spend hours of my time trying to suss enough information from an ambiguous single sentence full of misconceptions and easily discredited falsehoods just to satisfy an answer that you weren't actually looking for in the first place. Ultimately, I don't care what nonsense you choose to believe if you insist on believing it.
3. Evolutionary theory does not have all the answers, nor does it claim to. It has explanations for things that we see, from which predictions can be made about what we are likely to discover in the future, and in that sense, it has been very successful. Even if you were able to stump the most knowledgeable scientist studying in the field, it wouldn't really prove much beyond the need for additional research.

 

[CherubRam]

Isn't amazing how soft tissue has survived in fossils carbon dated to be millions of years old? :jawdrop:

How come the fossils in the rock strata show that while one group of species suddenly died out, another suddenly sprang into being? How is that possible? Let us see your evidence.

Why, so you can tell them they made a boo boo. I like their facts, they make me laugh. I did notice that the Creation Evolutionist say that both creatures and plants started at the same time, about 250 million years ago.

Successive rock layers contain different groups of fossil species without evidence of succession of species. Evidence of succession of species is given by an artist and is not found in nature. However, there is evidence of limited adaptability in nature.

 

[CherubRam]

What exactly are you referring to?



I will answer you if I can, if you can give me enough information about your premise, but with the following caveats:

1. I am not an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, geologist, or in any other way a specialist. My views don't represent the state of the science in any case, but my own personal understanding. You are likely better off reading Wikipedia if you are genuinely curious, or for that matter, a decent book on the subject, which given my experience with creationists thus far, seems unlikely.
2. I will only put as much effort into answering as you evince in asking. I'm not going to spend hours of my time trying to suss enough information from an ambiguous single sentence full of misconceptions and easily discredited falsehoods just to satisfy an answer that you weren't actually looking for in the first place. Ultimately, I don't care what nonsense you choose to believe if you insist on believing it.
3. Evolutionary theory does not have all the answers, nor does it claim to. It has explanations for things that we see, from which predictions can be made about what we are likely to discover in the future, and in that sense, it has been very successful. Even if you were able to stump the most knowledgeable scientist studying in the field, it wouldn't really prove much beyond the need for additional research.

Successive rock layers contain different groups of fossil species without evidence of succession of species. Evidence of succession of species is given by an artist and is not found in nature. However, there is evidence of limited adaptability in nature.

 

[rexlunae]

Successive rock layers contain different groups of fossil species without evidence of succession of species. Evidence of succession of species is given by an artist and is not found in nature.

Not true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

However, there is evidence of limited adaptability in nature.

Limited by what? And how do you distinguish between "limited adaptability" and ...unlimted?

 

[Caino]

Isn't amazing how soft tissue has survived in fossils carbon dated to be millions of years old? :jawdrop:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html

 

[CherubRam]

Not true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Limited by what? And how do you distinguish between "limited adaptability" and ...unlimted?

Saying that apes transitioned to Humans, or, Dino's to birds, it is not what I call science. Those pictures you see of Humans transitioning are artist drawings, of what they think may have taken place. The term "missing links" is used for a reason. Look at dogs and horses for limited adaptability. But has any of them stopped being a dog or horse? And you know what happens when selected breeding stops, they revert back to their original form. And that is a scientific fact.

 

[CherubRam]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html

I doubt that iron in the blood preserved the tissue for 68 million years.

 

[rexlunae]

Saying that apes transitioned to Humans, or, Dino's to birds, it is not what I call science.

I would agree. Science is not a set of disjointed and unjustified claims. It is the process of making hypotheses and testing them.

Those pictures you see of Humans transitioning are artist drawings,

OF COURSE THEY ARE!!! No one thinks they aren't. What do you expect?

...of what they think may have taken place.

...based upon the fossil evidence that we've found. For obvious reasons, we haven't found living instances of these now-extinct primates for a photo-shoot.

I'm not sure why you're so fascinated by this obvious fact yet.

The term "missing links" is used for a reason.

Yes. And what does that tell you?

Look at dogs and horses for limited adaptability.

I see the adaptation. I don't see the limits.

But has any of them stopped being a dog or horse?

What do you get when a donkey mates with a horse?

Species lines aren't hard and fast. They are colloquial descriptions for grouping relatively closely related individuals, and there are middle grounds between them.

And you know what happens when selected breeding stops, they revert back to their original form.

That depends on the selective pressures. Obviously, removing one type of pressure can change the course of evolution, but that doesn't mean that it will always revert to some prior form.

And that is a scientific fact.

No, it's not.

 

[Interplanner]

What about tohu wa-bohu? It is in the 2nd verse of the Bible and must be grasped before proceding.

 

[Cross Reference]

I would agree. Science is not a set of disjointed and unjustified claims. It is the process of making hypotheses and testing them.

Evolution is a course in how to make theory, fact ___ and make it believable.

...based upon the fossil evidence that we've found. For obvious reasons, we haven't found living instances of these now-extinct primates for a photo-shoot.

Then the whole idea is still theory, right?

I'm not sure why you're so fascinated by this obvious fact yet.

Because of your fascination with your idea that evilution fact. Pun intended.

Yes. And what does that tell you?

There are none.

I see the adaptation. I don't see the limits.

Huh??

What do you get when a donkey mates with a horse?

A mule. Do mules reproduce?

Species lines aren't hard and fast. They are colloquial descriptions for grouping relatively closely related individuals, and there are middle grounds between them.

A donkey is. and so is a horse.

That depends on the selective pressures. Obviously, removing one type of pressure can change the course of evolution, but that doesn't mean that it will always revert to some prior form.

Ah yes, selective pressures. And who applies them?

No, it's not.

What part can be counted on as being fact?

 

[Cross Reference]

What exactly are you referring to?



I will answer you if I can, if you can give me enough information about your premise, but with the following caveats:

1. I am not an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, geologist, or in any other way a specialist. My views don't represent the state of the science in any case, but my own personal understanding. You are likely better off reading Wikipedia if you are genuinely curious, or for that matter, a decent book on the subject, which given my experience with creationists thus far, seems unlikely.
2. I will only put as much effort into answering as you evince in asking. I'm not going to spend hours of my time trying to suss enough information from an ambiguous single sentence full of misconceptions and easily discredited falsehoods just to satisfy an answer that you weren't actually looking for in the first place. Ultimately, I don't care what nonsense you choose to believe if you insist on believing it.
3. Evolutionary theory does not have all the answers, nor does it claim to. It has explanations for things that we see, from which predictions can be made about what we are likely to discover in the future, and in that sense, it has been very successful. Even if you were able to stump the most knowledgeable scientist studying in the field, it wouldn't really prove much beyond the need for additional research.

So, in the end it is really a faith venture, isn't it?

 

[rexlunae]

Evolution is a course in how to make theory, fact ___ and make it believable.

Then the whole idea is still theory, right?

Of course it's a theory. And we've gotten to the point in the discussion where you exhibit your desire to rewrite the scientific lexicon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Because of your fascination with your idea that evilution fact. Pun intended.

My, how droll.

There are none.

So, you don't think we can find any pattern in the fossil record unless we have every single individual?

Huh??

You said that there was limited adaptation. So, what are the limits in your examples?

A mule. Do mules reproduce?

Not often, but it can happen. But...they exist. They directly respond to your false notion that a horse only reproduces a horse.

A donkey is. and so is a horse.

So then, what's a mule? Or a hinny?

Ah yes, selective pressures. And who applies them?

Naturally? Nature. That's what "natural selection" means.

What part can be counted on as being fact?

What part of your claim? None, as far as I can tell.

So, in the end it is really a faith venture, isn't it?

No, that's still you. You're projecting.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course it's a theory. And we've gotten to the point in the discussion where you exhibit your desire to rewrite the scientific lexicon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory



My, how droll.



So, you don't think we can find any pattern in the fossil record unless we have every single individual?



You said that there was limited adaptation. So, what are the limits in your examples?



Not often, but it can happen. But...they exist. They directly respond to your false notion that a horse only reproduces a horse.



So then, what's a mule? Or a hinny?



Naturally? Nature. That's what "natural selection" means.



What part of your claim? None, as far as I can tell.



No, that's still you. You're projecting.

Whatever <I have no time for your regurgitated falderal>

 

[Jonahdog]

Where you around when evolution got started?

No, does being "around" when something started give someone more credibility? I was around when the Russians launched Sputnick, does that give me more credibility to discuss space flight?
Were you around when Paul was hit by the lightning bolt, when your god gave Moses the tablets?

 

[Jonahdog]

Isn't amazing how soft tissue has survived in fossils carbon dated to be millions of years old? :jawdrop:

More amazing in that carbon dating doesn't work for fossils millions of years old. Ask Barbarian, he'll explain it if you want to know the facts. He has much more patience than I do.

 

[Jonahdog]

How come the fossils in the rock strata show that while one group of species suddenly died out, another suddenly sprang into being? How is that possible? Let us see your evidence.

Citation to this claim, please.

 

[Jonahdog]

I doubt that iron in the blood preserved the tissue for 68 million years.

And that is based on your extensive background in paleochemistry, no doubt.

 

[Jonahdog]

So, in the end it is really a faith venture, isn't it?

No.

 

[CherubRam]

What about tohu wa-bohu? It is in the 2nd verse of the Bible and must be grasped before proceding.

After the creation of the universe this world existed as a formless body of water. The "terraforma" was "void," "was not." The Sun already existed after the creation of the universe, but Elohiym [Yahwah] caused the light to appear. The creation account called "day" is an epoch of time. Dark matter existed primordially when Yahwah came into being. Gravity that God created caused the dark matter to form atoms, and cause the dark matter to differentiate into different elements. Michael.

 

[Jonahdog]

After the creation of the universe this world existed as a formless body of water. The "terraforma" was "void," "was not." The Sun already existed after the creation of the universe, but Elohiym [Yahwah] caused the light to appear. The creation account called "day" is an epoch of time. Dark matter existed primordially when Yahwah came into being. Gravity that God created caused the dark matter to form atoms, and cause the dark matter to differentiate into different elements. Michael.

It's so cool how you make stuff up.