Okay. Let’s be clear. No. That’s not my understanding about the evolution farce. My understanding is, it is fake science. It doesn’t occur. Not slowly not quickly. And when evolutionists declare it is working, they say, “keep watching for a few hundred million years and one day, one day, Wimpy will actually pay for that hamburger”.
Why else did Darwin claim when they found transitional fossils there would be enough to show the step by step change from one descentdant of one kind to that of another kind.
You claim dinosaurs came to be the ancestors of birds. How else is this going to happen except by something already a part of a dinosaur, is going to be slowly changed, or something else is going to slowly be added to the descendants until a new dinosaur is sporting new amenities.
Have you observed it occurring? Go ahead, how do or how did you envision it to have occurred?
How in the world, for that matter, would scales, leather just slowly become feather like than feathers?
Can you even begin to imagine evolution realizing bones need to be lighter, the heart needs to pump faster, the stomach, lungs, and other changes of the physiology needed to meet other demands. Wings that would need to be anchored in a certain way to be used as wings, feathers that would need to be designed just right to compensate for takeoff and landings.
Why in the world, how in any sense of the imagination wouldn’t evolution get it wrong at some point, and form a one wing bird?
Why are all animals looking as though they went through an assembly line, or cut from the same molding, and not looking as though chance and chaos was in charge.
You have no idea, well, maybe you do, but choose to ignore the evidence of intelligent design.
Darwin made no such prediction and Gould was wrong about Darwin’s views. I’ve already shown that Darwin’s ideas were closer to Punctuated Equilibria than Phyletic Gradualism.
Gould was not waffling on the matter. He said that species level transitions should rarely be represented in the fossil record but held that intermediates between higher level groups were common. And I have explained exactly how that follows from Gould’s idea of Punctuated Equilibria.
Your writing is unclear, however intermediates between higher level groupings are more frequently found than the species-level intermediates, exactly as Gould’s theory predicts. Tiktaalik, for instance is a clear example. And scientists are still finding more.
There is plenty of evidence that supports UCA from the Linnaean taxonomy used in Darwin’s time and he Biogeographic observations of Darwin and Wallace to the evidence found by more modern methods such as gene sequencing.
Yeah this is totally pointless. This guy knows nothing about biology, science, or evolution. Total know-nothing that can do nothing but spam the same empty talking points over and over again.
Thanks for embarrassing yourself with this response. It’s obvious you don’t know jack. Enjoy in your delusions. I will wait for a more reasonable creationist to come along.
I will also enjoin others not to entertain his crankery. Let’s not make a “meerkat” out of this thread.
Different hominid skulls, all apparently different kinds, the morphological change between them is impossible to evolve. Wolf and Chihuahua skull, same kind. Creationism lol
Sorry, I seem to have again overestimated your level of comprehension. Let’s try again:
I am asking you to explain what you believe would be the case IF EVOLUTION WAS TRUE.
I did NOT ask WHETHER you believe evolution is true.
As a comparison, I do not believe YEC to be true.
But if you asked me what I think would be the case IF YEC was true, I would give an answer like “YEC’s believe that all life forms can be organized into ‘Kinds’ that have descended from original life forms that were created by God sometime in the last 6000 years or so. And no member of one ‘Kind’ shares a common ancestor with any member of any other ‘Kind.’”
If that is NOT what YEC’s believe, by all means correct me.
So, again what I am asking YOU is the describe what you believe would be the case if what evolutionists believe to be true actually WAS true.
e.g. Would there have been a period of millions of years where land mammals gave birth to other land mammals, and then in the space of a single generation one land mammal gave birth to a whale?
Would we observe, in the present day, one “Kind” of organism (according to the creationist definition of “Kind”) having offspring of a differet “Kind”, such as an oak tree giving birth to a dolphin?
You seem to be applying some definition of “evidence” of which I was previously unaware. I have contended that the science of evolution works. Since you don’t pay attentions to examples when I give them, I won’t repeat myself on those lines. BUT you have probably seen advertisements on TV for anti-cancer treatments derived from evolutionary theory. Sometimes it’s called “personalized medicine”.
Yes, but right-wing authoritarians tend to lack even the tiniest smidgen of empathy that would allow them to even consider walking in someone else’s shoes.
Thank you @rtmcdge for mindlessly, and mind-numbingly, copy-and-pasting from the pages of three creationist apologists.
The trouble is that the opinions of these apologists is not evidence of what Darwin did, or did not, predict, or what his views were.
Nor are the near-endless spewing of quote-mines of other evolutionary biologists, and creationists, from the third apologist, that you have included.
In order to understand what Darwin predicted, and what his views were, you would need to read Darwin’s books – which you clearly have not. Those are the onlyhard evidence as to what Darwin did, or did not, predict, and what his views were.
