T
Techno2000
Guest
All the fossils they have found have come from complete animals,nothing “in-between”.
- Status
M
mVitus
Guest
Define “in between fossil.” What would you describe as an in between fossil for a wolf to a chihuahua for example? Otherwise we don’t know what you’re expecting.
F
frobert
Guest
Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
Fossils with transitional morphology are not rare. Fossils illustrating the gradual origin of humans, horses, rhinos, whales, seacows, mammals, birds, tetrapods, and various major Cambrian “phyla” have been discovered and are well-known to scientists. …claims to the contrary are just a rehash of older creationist arguments on this point, relying on out-of-context quotes, confusion over terminology and classification, and ignoring inconvenient evidence.
Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull.
Image doesn’t seem to be working but you can view it here:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I’m talking about one animal slowly changing into some new animal, and leaving a trail of bones to show every stage of its progression, not an artist’s rendering of what that might look like. For every animal that has bones today there should be a trail of bones to show how it got that way.
U
Usagi
Guest
Um, if it lived to adulthood it’s always going to be a complete animal. They don’t come out with mismatched pieces or something. They have slightly better eyesight or longer legs or something.
Even so, we have had things like Archaeopteryx for a long time. Even before we were nearly so sure that today’s birds are descended from dinosaurs, we had the bones of a proto-bird. Surely that counts even by your standards.
G
goout
Guest
- Evolution is not something you “believe in” anymore than the theory of gravity is something you believe in. You look at the evidence and take it where it reasonably goes. That’s not belief, it’s discovery, experimentation. Etc…,.
- Darwinism refers to an ideology, not just a branch of scientific discovery.
think: You are doing something that you accuse your opponents of doing.
U
Usagi
Guest
Even so, but you might understand what it is that evolution proponents actually claim, which at present it seems you do not.
To borrow from Bishop Sheen, who said it about the Catholic Church, very few people reject the actual ideas of evolution. Many people reject a caricature of evolution that biologists would also reject.
G
goout
Guest
Every person who wants to make pronouncements on evolution should be required to take at least an entry level geology class. This is not some branch of new age vodoo but very legitimate straightforward science.
Young people out there who have trouble wrapping your minds around this, take a geology class.
Get a sense of how old the earth is, how long the processes that shape our land take to shape it.
Learn what a fossil is.
Learn how organisms develop and evolve, because they do, and if you don’t accept that you remain in ignorance.
And none of it will threaten the Truth of Adam and Eve.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Pure speculation from some fish bones .
G
goout
Guest
It’s not speculation.Pure speculation from some fish bones .
It’s called science. You gather evidence, make logical deductions etc…
Think.
We would be still living in caves if we regarded legitimate discovery as “speculation”.
T
Techno2000
Guest
It takes faith to believe that matter came from nothing ?You are conflating faith with science.
- Evolution is not something you “believe in” anymore than the theory of gravity is something you believe in. You look at the evidence and take it where it reasonably goes. That’s not belief, it’s discovery, experimentation. Etc…,.
That also conflates faith and science.
- Darwinism refers to an ideology, not just a branch of scientific discovery.
think: You are doing something that you accuse your opponents of doing.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Animals change into other animals.
Their form can change fairly quickly.
By careful breeding we have:
View attachment 23700
Although we know that animals did not “evolve” into people, we can’t really say how God moulded dust into the physical form of humanity.
As to the OP, it seems to me most arguments involve different definitions of the word.
Bottom line as far as I’m concerned: God made mankind in His image, and we emerged from one who became two, leading to the many.
G
goout
Guest
There are textbooks full of solid evidentiary connections for the development of organisms.
To deny this is nothing short of pagan superstition. It’s no different that refusing to take your child to the doctor because you believe modern medicine is speculation.
No different.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Evolution has no Official Doctrine like the Church does.
G
goout
Guest
Right. ok
The Church doesn’t pronounce on evolution by way of doctrine.
Does all your science need to be endorsed by the Church before you’ll accept it?
You better bring a lunch and a change of clothes, cause you’re in for a long wait.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Can you show any animal today that is in the process of changing into something new ?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Can God create a burrito so hot even he couldn’t eat it?
Gothcha now, theists!
Gothcha now, theists!
G
goout
Guest
U
Usagi
Guest
No, but there is a consensus view.
I finally grasped the essentials of evolution in one class 20+ years ago in college. I am hardly an expert, but even I can tell that you don’t really understand what you’re trying to reject.
You ask for transitional fossils. Someone links you to an article about transitional fossils and you reject it. Is there any evidence you would accept?
T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s called procreation,not evolution… can you answer the Question or not ?
- Status