A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Isn't it interesting how a religious fundamentalist will try to discredit evolution by calling it a religion, with no evidence or facts that is believed anyways, then go on to proclaim how right and true their own religion is, a religion that has no evidence or facts but indeed must be accepted through faith. In the first half of the statement, religion is bad and for the ignorant, in the second half it is the Truth, the one and only Truth.

 

You ask us for transitional fossils, then completely ignore what is meant by "transitional." Archaeopteryx IS a transitional fossil: is is essentially half-bird, half-reptile. The very fact that some people believe it's a bird while others believe it's a reptile only lends credence to the fact that it is a TRANSITIONAL species.

As for the whales, I responded to your post on whales in the same post to which you purportedly replied. Read my explanation of that and respond, please. It also quite clearly shows how unfathomably difficult it is to find the pure gold.

Keep digging for Elvis!

 

i have a revelation that will upset lots of people, then upset more when i describe what i mean...

THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS TRANSITIONAL ANIMALS/FOSSILS!!!!!


what i eman is that like which the archepoterixdid not eongate its limbs and grow feathers and such...it started with prbobly lizards which lived in trees...they probobly had feather like coverings on them...over time, those animals with longer arms and thicker feathers had an advantage over those who did not and over time the less adapt died out...

evolution in practice is best seen with viruses....ok, viruses...


how come we need to get immunized EVERY YEAR, its because the virus mutates against the immunization strain, and then can infect people...the effects can also be seen with insects and persticieds...you want evolution, INFUENZA IS EVOLUTION!!!!

im probobly done in here

 

That really didn't make a lot of sense, and I don't think you're helping our case here. Thanks for the effort, though.

 

yeah...thats cause i wont help spread the myths of evolution...people dont know what the hell its acctually about and it sickens me

 

youre talking about survival of the fittest...

 

which really doesnt have much to do with evolution, does it?

 

are you talking about me?

 

First of all, it's survival of the fit, not survival of the fittest. That's why things are merely functional, not perfect.

Second, Burbot, nobody is saying that Archaeopteryx is like a reptile that underwent metamorphosis and grew longer limbs and feathers. Your counter-argument simply illustrated the development of Archeopteryx, which was a transitional species between what we now classify as reptiles and what we now classify as birds.

And thirdly, Colours, I'm going to assume that you were being facetious, because of course survival of the fit is a central tenet of evolution.

 

yes, except metamorphisis is a bad word...the way you throw around transitional species is stupid...you make it sound like it goes lizard-> archeopterix -> bird

which isnt the case...although we can see evidence of it in the hoatzin wich posseses two clwas on each wing to help it climb...we see that with this evidence, lizards did not develop wings to fly, but maybe early bird-like animals developed claws to help climb trees as the infant hoatzins do..


hoatzin chick

you see, evoltution is not an exact scinece, in fact its not even a science at all...it is a scientific theory that follows the basis that a species will constantly change to better fit its surrounding with random small ammino-acid mutations inside the DNA that can eventually lead to large scale changes over lots of years...




shit half the time, im not sure what the accutal theory is, someimes i get confused because there is so much that is taught wrong about it...people need to be more open minded, on both sides

 

BTW- influenza is still the best example of evolution in action

 

Microraptor zhaoianus



The forests of early Cretaceous Asia are host to a wide range of feathered dinosaurs, from delicate Caudipteryx and lumbering Beipiaosaurus, to Microraptor, a genus of tiny, agile, tree-climbing deinonychosaurs.

At roughly half a meter in length, M. zhaoianus is smaller than a modern crow, more legs, tail, and spreading feathers than anything else. These feathers deserve some special attention, since apart from the downy insulating fuzz that is one of the hallmarks of clade Coelurosauria, M. zhaoianus also sports fans of broad, air-catching flight feathers spreading from its arms, legs, and tail. A vicious if tiny carnivore, M. zhaoianus these fans of feathers as control surfaces as it leaps from branch to branch in search of prey. Tale and leg vanes deployed for stability, the little predator spreads its arms in a modification of the classical maniraptoran method of prey-capture, and deftly maneuvers its mid-air leaps to land with precision on a branch that may be many meters away from its take-off point.

Though flightless, M. zhaoianus use their aerial agility to hunt and catch the many small creatures that live in the treetops, sweeping across the canopy in pursuit of mammals like Eomaia and Sinodelphys and birds such as Confuciusornis. Having rather short and inflexible necks, these predators do not use their mouths to catch prey as much as their hands and feet, the latter possessing the upraised ice-pick talons of all deinonychosaurs. The mouth, with a forward guard of smooth, backward-curving teeth, pulls flesh up to back teeth, serrated on the rear edges, that slice as the microraptor pulls meat across them (Mortimer). The feet, armed with sharp claws on the middle two digits, a backward-facing first digit, and the deinonychosaurian hyper-extendable talon are masters of versatility, enabling the creature to run, perch, catch and slice prey, and rappell up vertical tree trunks with ease. This deftness in the branches makes M. zhaoianus a dangerous predator of any arboreal animal.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Dinosaurs/Microraptorzhoui.htm

http://www.indyrad.iupui.edu/public/jrafert/Filipovic/spectacular_feathered_dinosaurs_.htm

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/dinofeather.html

 

I think we can settle the trans-species thing pretty quick actually. i mentioned it and other people did to but i think we jsut need to highlight the fact.

campbell claims that the bird-reptile thing is a bird, and not a reptile at all.

tell us, campbell, of these birds that you see, with jaws, and teeth. i would very much like to see one.

when you can show us of these birds with jaws and teeth, then we will concede that Archaeopteryx is a bird. if you cannot show us these birds of yours with jaw and teeth, then how can you claim that any creature with a jaw and teeth is a bird?

(jaws an teeth as opposd to a beak, if your confused)

 

Im going to give my Definition of a Trans-Species, I think for the fourth time now. It is any living creature that can be found in the fossil record that demonstrates dramatic change brought on by the process of evolution, which can be seen by modern comparisons of todays living relatives.

LEAVE DARWIN ALONE, OH, so I guess that means you have to give up his theory because he died. Give me a break.

Oh, and dinsour prints remained soft for 70 million years until man showed up.
WOW. You would believe anything then. WOW

 

Ok, to clarify. Species are only considered "trasitional species" in the context of time. When archaeopterx was alive, it wasn't a transitional species, it was for it's time an endpoint. Time passes, and some of their offspring (over thousands of years) evolved to be what we'd consider more birdlike. Only now can we call it transitional. Evolution is fluid, even with the punctuated equilibrium model, it's still bit by bit, though obviously faster than gradualism. So it's not like one day you have reptile, the next day you have some weird reptile-bird, then the next day a bird. There are no hard borders or lines between them...the boundries blurr. Thus, there can be any number of "transitional species" if you want to narrow it down as far as possible, one for every generation. But to ask for that in fossil evidence is to ask the impossible, since there just won't be that many fossils, thanks to the wonders of decay and biological cycles (and recycling). If everything fossilized we'd soon be out of raw materials from which to make new bodies. Obviously you have to connect the dots between what fossils you DO have.

 

What makes you think they had to be huge? It's not that my argument is not adding up. Your thinking is limited to a theory that was never based on facts, and is in trouble. Yet, it has put you in a position of trying to defend a belief, which was suppose to be science, but is more myth. Evolution is so sacred to some in science, that they will change all other theories before they would consider touching the Theory of Evolution. This can be seen in the new fossil discovery of soft tissue in dinasour bones. Up to a few years ago those who believed in evolution told us, that soft tissue could never be found in such bones because after 10,000 years they become mineralized. Then the discovery of soft tissue in a dinasour bone shot that theory down. Yet, rather than draw the conclusion that this bone has come from a recent time, they went the other way, and now say soft tissue can remain soft for 70 million years or longer. All other long held theories must change, to conform to a theory, which is based on nothing.

 

Oh, a singal family line of whales sprouted legs and walked out of the sea. And they all lived happily ever after. I got a better chance of finding Elvis, then you will ever have making that theory fly. I'm not looking for a speciefic fossil. I'm just looking for one fossil out of billions, that demonstrate
Evolution in action, which should be easy to find. Just show me one. Evolution is not science, it's not fact, it's a fairy tale that some scientist believe in.

 

I think we can settle the trans-species thing pretty quick actually. i mentioned it and other people did to but i think we jsut need to highlight the fact.

campbell claims that the bird-reptile thing is a bird, and not a reptile at all.

tell us, campbell, of these birds that you see, with jaws, and teeth. i would very much like to see one.

when you can show us of these birds with jaws and teeth, then we will concede that Archaeopteryx is a bird. if you cannot show us these birds of yours with jaw and teeth, then how can you claim that any creature with a jaw and teeth is a bird?

(jaws an teeth as opposd to a beak, if your confused)

 

ok, im frekaing serious....explain influenza wi creationism, please...whenever it gets brought up [cause i know its been brought up in other threads, not nessecarily in here] it gets ignored

 

bill keep posting it till he responds!!