Ah, the power and persuasiveness of hollerin’.
4 Likes
…hollerer than thou.
3 Likes
John, I don’t see you providing any empirical evidence that disputes what I’ve said.
Let’s try doing this, instead of attempting to denigrate.
There is no empirical evidence that supports the speculative speculation that all lifeforms are related to a first ever mythical kind of life.
Kindly supply what it was the has convinced you that common descent evolution is true.
You can’t call dinosaurs to birds, land animals to whales or ape like creatures to human claims of evolution, as evidence to support common descendant evolution, because those things were not witnessed by any of the evolutionists.
And what is observed today, completely contradicts common descent evolution.
Because all we see is every time two of the various species of the different kinds of lifeforms reproduce the resulting organism has always been classified as the same kind of lifeform as the original parent organisms.
The transitions you are referring to, do not exist.
You have ignored everything I’ve told you. That’s why you don’t see it. And as others have pointed out, you have presented no empirical evidence to back up what you’ve said. It’s impossible to present evidence against what you say until you make any sort of testable claim. This is why, long ago, I asked you to clarify your claims. You ignored that too. Perhaps we should start there:
1 Like
Yes they do – and I gave you a list back here – so you are ignoring the evidence again.
That the ICR, a YEC religious ministry, denies their existence is neither surprising, nor evidence. This is especially true given that the scientist they put on the video is a paleobiochemist not a paleontologist, and so not an expert on transitional forms.
These videos serve only to ‘preach to the choir’ and have no credibility to a skeptical audience – so one wonders why you insist on repeatedly inflicting them on us.
1 Like
That’s the most ignorant of all creationist tropes, “Were you there?”. It’s a complete misunderstanding of how science works. You can know about events you didn’t see if those things leave behind traces that it’s possible to observe. If you come across a tree stump with the sort of marks made by a chain saw, you know somebody cut down a tree, even though you didn’t see it happen. Similarly, evolution leaves evidence. We don’t have to see, for example, whales evolve from land animals if we see the evidence in living animals, for example this:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.18.10261
In general, the best evidence for common descent is the nested hierarchy of genetic data of many different sorts. Here, it’s SINEs, or short interspersed nuclear elements. I could show many other sort of data, all of which agree on whale relationships. Separate creation would not predict such a pattern.
1 Like
All you have done is make denials. You’ve provided no evidence. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
I have.
You seem to disagree, so kindly let me know what it is I have not provided evidence for.
Since creationists can’t agree on whether a particular fossil is ape or human, that’s as good evidence it’s transitional as you are going to get:
Oh btw, creationists for the longest time also couldn’t seem to decide on whether Archeopteryx was a bird or a reptile. Clearly transitional.
1 Like
No. You have a bunch of Youtube videos from a bunch of credibility-free creationist ministries, mostly featuring people with no expertise in the areas they are making claims about.
You have descended, with remarkable speed, into performative sealioning.
4 Likes
You have not proven the videos are not scientifically sound. They deal with what is presently.
You article refers to something THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED. There is no science that shows different kinds of lifeforms are related through a common ancestor.
All that is observed is that those of the various species that make up the different kinds of lifeforms, all, ALL, ALWAYS reproduce those of the same kinds of lifeforms.
This tells us the the only common ancestry THAT IS OBSERVED are among those of the various species that make up the different kinds of lifeforms.
Dogs have dog ancestors. Cats all have cat ancestors. All of the ape kind all have ape ancestors. And human are known to only have human ancestors.
Any similarities, ANY SIMILARITIES are not because of common descent, but because the DNA is directed to build similar physiologies according to the needs of the kinds of lifeform in question.
Penetrating rebuttal.
Total waste of time. The argument from assertion ad nauseam while ignoring responses.
3 Likes
So far, @rtmcdge considers quote mines to be evidence, apologetic videos to be research, without embarrassment actually argued that we should have fossils showing the back legs of land animals slowly evolving into a whale fluke, that if we do not live for a million years to personally witness evolutionary change then it could not happen, and shows no sign of actually reading any material he was provided. He informed us that apes give birth to apes, so he is one step from the classic if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes? This is not a promising start.
3 Likes
You are getting closer. All extent primates, including humans, have primate ancestors.
2 Likes
No. Not in the least. But I’m willing to listen if you will finally post some evidence for your claims.
Of course that’s what we see! Did you actually think that the Theory of Evolution predicts otherwise? If a male and a female of a particular species ever produced an offspring unlike the parents (not "the same kind of lifeform), that would be a powerful blow.
One more time: You need to familiarize yourself with how evolutionary processes work. If you did, you wouldn’t post such an irrelevant statement. These Dunning-Kruger arguments go nowhere.
3 Likes
Given that you have provided no evidence backing up their credibility, there is no reason to view them as anything other than ‘just another crank on Youtube pushing disinformation’ – of which there are thousands. Why would I feel any more obligation to prove they “are not scientifically sound” than I would towards any of those thousands of others? This is another “Someone is Wrong on the Internet” argument.
That sentence makes no sense.
No. the page I referred you is based upon evidence as to what occurred. If you want to find out what that evidence is, you are welcome to do as I suggested and look up each of the species listed in Google Scholar. This will lead you to peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject.
This comment goes well beyond merely “foolish”.
As I already pointed out, @John_Harshman just provided you with some of the scientific evidence here:
Given that creationists have yet to come up with a workable definition of “kinds”, this statement is likewise vacuous.
1 Like
Hey, all you need to do is come up with something that is observable, as I did.
I’ve told you that all of the different kinds of lifeforms have always, ALWAYS, been observed to reproduce descendant organisms of the same kind.
This is the pattern, PATTERN, that has always been observed.
Now, where is your evidence that shows this pattern was not what had occurred at some time in the past.
Nobody thinks that this “pattern” is departed from in any single generation, at least not to any substantial degree. But in the long term it is. The evidence is, of course, among other things, the faunal succession.
1 Like
Oh my.
How about this: If little children learn to speak the same language as their parents, how would it be possible for languages to evolve—such as Latin giving rise to French? Did French evolve when some child shocked his Latin-speaking parents by speaking to them in French?
What was the name of the first child to speak French? Was it awkward when his/her parents realized that they couldn’t converse with their own child? Did anybody observe this event?
7 Likes