Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
vz71:
Fossils tell us an animal was there, and is now gone.
But do not indicate a animal turning into another animal.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
As to time…that seems convenient.
Click to expand...
Facts are not judged by whether they are convenient or inconvenient.
Dogs are still dogs, in spite of all the human intervention.
Click to expand...
They are still dogs because our language chooses to call them all dogs. So that distinction means nothing.
Click to expand...
Yeah…3 or 4 billion years have passed and nobody can see anything changing right now. But they know for sure that lots of things changed millons of year ago.
Click to expand...
Not true. Things were changing at the same rate millions of years ago as they are now - slowly.
Click to expand...
If that was the case then we should at least see hundreds of animals in transition to becoming a new species …where are they ?
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Not true. Things were changing at the same rate millions of years ago as they are now - slowly.
Click to expand...
If that was the case then we should at least see hundreds of animals in transition to becoming a new species …where are they ?
Click to expand...
Everywhere. But you can’t see the change unless you wait long enough for the change to be large enough to see. How much time do you have?
 
I been waiting 3 or 4 billions years, when I was just a little chemical … when does the clock start ?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Everywhere. But you can’t see the change unless you wait long enough for the change to be large enough to see. How much time do you have?
Click to expand...
So, if one could travel back in time, one could not see the evolution of the Whale ?
 
buffalo said:
They can no longer breed because of LOSS OF FUNCTION.
Click to expand...
You don’t even know what organisms I am talking about. How can you possibly know why they cannot interbreed? In fact I was proposing a definition of species. But I suspect that no definition of species will be acceptable to ID proponents because they want to keep the definition fuzzy so that their arguments are shielded from attack.

I was under the impression that you folks accept micro evolution and call it adaptation, but say that macro evolution, that is the development of a new species, is impossible. If I can get you to agree on the definition of “species” I can show you a contemporary example of macro evolution that has been observed as it happens.
 
Last edited:
Are we fighting about how whales evolved?

Homologous structures - hips and limb bones - as well as DNA sequencing show that whales are a type of ungulate, order Artiodactyla. Other Artiodactylae are camels, cattle, pigs, llamas, bison, sheep, goats, and hippos. All these animals are clearly related in a special way.

Fossil evidence also has shown several proto-whale species that are clearly whales, but still with their hind legs attached to hip bones nearly identical to the hip bones whales have now. These proto-whales would have swam with their hips and hindquarters, not their limbs. The fossils show the structures that were used.
 
Rhubarb said:
Fossil evidence also has shown several proto-whale species that are clearly whales, but still with their hind legs attached to hip bones nearly identical to the hip bones whales have now. These proto-whales would have swam with their hips and hindquarters, not their limbs. The fossils show the structures that were used.
Click to expand...
Yep, fossil records tell us quite a lot. Check this meme out I just saw, Jesus would never say this but whatever, light humour.
 
How many morphological changes are required? How many years for each one to fix? What about the failures?
 
If you understood how flood sediments are layered you wouldn’t have posted this.

One day soon, go to beach and play in the sand at the water edge. Dig a small hole and watch.
 
Yes, and I believe an updated definition is being created now. It will be much more complex than just phenotypes.
 
No. It is much to limited and man made. As we now know speciation is the loss of an ability once had.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, and I believe an updated definition is being created now. It will be much more complex than just phenotypes.
Click to expand...
Read my post again. I did not refer to phenotypes. I referred to a new organism that is genetically different enough from others descended from the same line that they cannot interbreed with those others. Would you agree that is macro evolution? If not, then please propose a reasonable definition of macro evolution that one could reasonably attempt to satisfy.
 
Last edited:
do you have an article on finding that fossil or something with the whale with hindlegs? Thanks
 
Benedict being a reliable source of what? The theory of evolution? How not to be pope? What?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top