Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

Not even close.

No avian keel breastbone. No avian ribs. No avian tail. No beak. Teeth. Dinosaur forelegs, not bird wings. Unfused spine. But it has feathers. So did many other dinosaurs.

Well first off, the Google images have the thing looking like a bird...and that is just me speaking from a purely observational standpoint. It looks like a bird. Second, I am sure those who drew the images are aware of your little fossil picture, yet they still draw it looking like a bird.

We can agree/disagree about whether or not it is a bird or a dinosaur, but the bigger question is whether or not it is a transitional fossil....and I say no.

Not much about bird or dinosaur anatomy, it seems.

Apparently not. Again, I guess I have to just sit back and enjoy the show as the bright and educated evolutionist schools me on bird and dinosaur anatomy. I guess the moment you become an evolutionist, you mysteriously begin to gain all of this knowledge of anatomy, molecular chemistry, and carbon dating.

I can only hope I have the brain power to keep up....and I hope even more to have some dark enough shades to be able to "see" with all of the brightness that is oozing from the evolutionists brain.

Knowing what one is talking about is a definite advantage, yes.

Here is what I know; canines produce canines. I've seen no good evidence to the contrary yet.

Every animal is a distinct separate creature.

They sure are.

That's exactly how scientists work. A bird and a dinosaur are "distinct and separate creatures", but when compared to a lizard,they may as well be identical twins.

Sure, an iguana and a parrot are "brothers from another mother".

Clearly a reptile. Lots of reptile apomorphic characters. No avian ones, though.

No fossil ducks like that, either. Sorry.

Um, it would be in a transitional stage. It wouldn't be the complete product...upon completion, it would be a duck.

You just have to wait a few hundred million years, it'll get there.

Nope. Not one remotely like the mouth of a platypus:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=variet ... &ia=images

I suppose it's why you didn't show us any of them. That is creationism for you, though...all kinds of deception and trickery.

I didn't show it because I don't know how to post images on this joint yet. But tell ya what..this is from a forum about an injured duck...the duck's bill is injured (unfortunate for it), but the bill looks more like that of the platypus than what you originally showed.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/thread ... p.1077752/

And the vast number of skeletal differences would quickly make it clear that it wasn't even a eutherian, much less a beaver. But it would clearly indicate that it was a mammal.

Nope.

Shoulder girdle, for example. It has the complex reptilian form, but otherwise mammalian. Pretty much a tip-off that it's a monotreme.

Again, you have to give it time. It is in a TRANSITIONAL STAGE. That is like watching the "Titanic" movie, which is about 3 hours long...and 30 minutes in you assume that the ship won't sink because it hasn't sank "yet".

Keep watching (keep waiting). I mean, we all know that these things take time.

Like most people who think they hate evolution, you don't know what it is.

Here is what I do know; canines produce canines.

That's pretty much standard creationism.

You're still confusing homologous structures with analogous structures.

That is like saying "You're still confusing Gotham City with Metropolis". Setting me straight on the difference between the two (which you haven't), still doesn't make the city any more real.

If pigs could fly...

does it matter?

Yep. Reality matters.

"If"....ahhh yes, hypothethicals.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Too bad for them, then. They sound no better than Jonathan Wells.

And the guy that told Jonathan Wells to destroy evolution sounds no better than Dawkins.

Regarding "BAND" (Feduccia, et al)
They think that both dinosaurs and birds evolved from thecodonts. Is that what you think?

Here is what I think; canines produce canines. People are certainly free to have their theories, but uh.

Actually those guys do agree with birds evolving from reptiles. Thought you knew.

LOL. "Birds evolved from reptiles", says guy who is founding member of BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs).

And besides...

"A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, as many scientists have believed, but from a creature that existed long before.

The Scansoriopteryx, meaning ‘climbing wing,’ could prune the avian evolutionary tree.

It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

https://www.voanews.com/silicon-valley- ... -dinosaurs


Hehehehe.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are completely missing the point. The Moa has NO wings. So according to YOU, it's not a bird. Unless of course you wish to update your "bird" kind definition which seems to be nothing more than an on-the-fly (nice pun huh?) whatever suits you at the moment definition.

Surely the proponents of biblical "kind" classification have some clear definitions of each "kind" don't they? Something that actually holds together under some scrutiny? Your definition already fell apart.

That is no problem for me..it will be one of those "birds can be identified as creatures with beaks, wings, talons, etc...however, not all birds of the past had wings" kind of things. ​

No problems there.

Second, according the images, the Moa didn't have wings, OR arms...so in that case, it was neither a bird or a dinosaur.

Either way, I fail to see how the concept of evolution is anywhere in there, regardless.

[benchwarmer]

You are completely missing the point. The Moa has NO wings. So according to YOU, it's not a bird. Unless of course you wish to update your "bird" kind definition which seems to be nothing more than an on-the-fly (nice pun huh?) whatever suits you at the moment definition.

Surely the proponents of biblical "kind" classification have some clear definitions of each "kind" don't they? Something that actually holds together under some scrutiny? Your definition already fell apart.

That is no problem for me..it will be one of those "birds can be identified as creatures with beaks, wings, talons, etc...however, not all birds of the past had wings" kind of things. ​

No problems there.

Nice to see your definition shifting so quickly. First they had to have wings, now it's fine if they didn't (or don't?). You are basically admitting the initial definition you said "Exactly" to is useless. In addition, according to your "eyeball" test, you would be unable to tell if something is a bird or not.

I trust readers see that "biblical kind" is just pointless hand waving and useless in a debate about evolution.

Second, according the images, the Moa didn't have wings, OR arms...so in that case, it was neither a bird or a dinosaur.

Either way, I fail to see how the concept of evolution is anywhere in there, regardless.

Great, what "kind" was it then? They were pretty big, so if it's one of the original "kinds" the ark is filling up fast. Maybe you could enlighten us heathens as to what all the "kinds" are? Apparently we just found a new one.

[The Barbarian]

Too bad for them, then. They sound no better than Jonathan Wells.

And the guy that told Jonathan Wells to destroy evolution sounds no better than Dawkins.

The truth does seem matter to Dawkins, mistaken as he sometimes can be. His arguments with evolutionists like Gould were honest disagreements. As you see, Wells is a member of a cult, and he admits the cult overrides everything else.

Regarding "BAND" (Feduccia, et al)
They think that both dinosaurs and birds evolved from thecodonts. Is that what you think? [/quote]

People are certainly free to have their theories, but uh.

I get it. Not what you thought.

Actually those guys do agree with birds evolving from reptiles. Thought you knew.

LOL. "Birds evolved from reptiles", says guy who is founding member of BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs).

Yep. He just thinks that birds and dinosaurs evolved from thecodont reptiles.

"A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, as many scientists have believed, but from a creature that existed long before.
The Scansoriopteryx, meaning ‘climbing wing,’ could prune the avian evolutionary tree.

It's a maniraptoran dinosaur. Clearly not a bird. It had something like down feathers, but no evidence of actual feathers of the sort you'd find on a bird.

It’s just not a dinosaur.

It's a dinosaur.

Legs, tail,skull, hips, ribs, backbone,all those of a dinosaur. No bird apomorphic characters at all.

In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

Other than... everything.

Hehehehe.

Indeed.

[Difflugia]

Actually those guys do agree with birds evolving from reptiles. Thought you knew.

LOL. "Birds evolved from reptiles", says guy who is founding member of BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs).

Wait... are you being sarcastic because you think The Barbarian is wrong?

Alan Feduccia thinks that the reptile-bird divergence is basal to the initial divergence of dinosaurs; birds aren't dinosaurs, but both birds and dinosaurs are archosaurs (alligators are also archosaurs, by the way). Creationists like to quote-mine him because he says stuff like "birds are not dinosaurs," but the distinction he makes is a technical one based primarily on the evolutionary loss of a particular toe. Feduccia's 1999 book on the subject says this in the opening paragraph of chapter 1:

At a time when tropical temperatures warmed much of the Northern Hemisphere and low, palmlike vegetation covered what is now central Europe, a feathered creature the size of a crow met its death in a shallow lagoon. Of the event itself this is all we can know, separated from us as it is by approximately 150 million years. But the death is recorded nonetheless, chronicled by sediments that, throughout the millennia, settled and consolidated into lithographic limestone, a fine-grained limestone that preserved not only the shape of the bones but the delicate impression of feathers. The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian. The forearms that once held feathers ended in three fingers with sharp, recurved claws. The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms—what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.

[Miles]

I know, which is why I raised the total by only 75%, taking into account those species that don't require a partner to reproduce. If I simply doubled the amount it would have been 17.4 million---there being an estimated 8.7 million species in all.

What? Bro, it wasn't a million of anything. What are you talking about??

2. As I figured it out, the number of sets (pairs) would have been 3,262,500. (6,525,000 forms of life required males and females to reproduce.)

Bro, where are you getting these astronomical figures from, and why?

In any case, to house and feed 15 million species, no matter what their size, would have been a herculean task, and one preformed for at least 150 days by only eight people.

Still trying to figure out where you are getting 15 milly from....and you just simply fail to account for a very important fact here..."....one performed for at least 150 days by only eight people".

First of all, the flood waters are said to have lasted anywhere from 150 to 371, days, and if this is true, or any number close to it, other than a few exceptions all life would have perished under the brackish water (the sea water having mixed with all the rain water), so it would have been necessary to bring a representative or two of every species on earth aboard the ark, including animals, plants, fungi, etc. Secondly, the number of all these species is currently estimated to be 8.7 million and counting (Some scientists put the figure well above 8.7 million).

"Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million"
source

"Species count put at 8.7 million"
source

"Scientists have recently estimated that there are approximately 8.7 million species on Earth".
source

Soooo! assuming that 75% of these species (6.5 million) needed a male and female in order to reproduce the total so far would be 13 million (6.5 doubled). Add to that the remaining 25% (2.175 million) that didn't need a mate in order to reproduce and we get a total of 15.175 million (rounded down to 15 million) forms of life that Noah would have had to round up and take aboard the ark. And Just to note, aside from a handful of Euryhaline fish that can live in both fresh and salt water---almost all saltwater species of life will die if put into fresh or brackish water, and vice versa---all aquatic species, animals and plants, would have to be saved aboard the ark or they would perish. Hence the 15 million figure.

Just completely left out the Almighty God from the equation. LOL. I was almost tempted to reread the entire story to make sure if my memory served me correct; which is that an Almighty God had orchestrated the affairs.

Because the way you people are talking, it is as if Noah did the entire thing by his lonesome....no God, no nothing...just a 600 year old man, some wood, and some animals...and LOTS of water.

If you're going to contend that everything could have been taken care of by god simply waving his wand, then there's nothing to talk about. However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it would take a really doofus of a god to go to all the bother of having a boat built, rounding up 8.7 million species of life, and then flooding the earth so as to get rid of the rest of life, PLUS then stepping in to take care of it all, when he could have just as well waved his wand and had every piece of life disappear from the face of the earth except for one or two of each species. So, to be fair to your almighty god, lets' not assume he had anything to do with the whole affair other than talking to Noah and flooding the earth.

However, if you're contending that eight people could have assembled provisions for, and taken care of 15 million forms of life for 150 to 371 days aboard a relatively small boat, then your sense of proportion needs some serious fixin'.

Nope. I don't see any god as existing. However, I don't see why an inefficient god would have any less chance of existing than an efficient god.

And what are these "chances" based upon?

Lack of any reason to think otherwise. Why would one have a better chance of coming into being rather than the other?

After all, who would think a god would make mistakes, but there we have it in the Bible, Jehovah making mistakes in Genesis 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:35

Check out various commentaries on the whole "repent" business. It may not mean what you think it means.

Oh I have, and the sorry apologetic tap dancing is more amusing than anywhere near convincing. When the Bible says

Genesis 6:6

ICB
The Lord was sorry he had made human beings on the earth. His heart was filled with pain.

KJV
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

ESV
And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.


1 Samuel 15:35

CEV
Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel.

KJ21
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

CEB
Samuel never saw Saul again before he died, but he grieved over Saul. However, the Lord regretted making Saul king over Israel.

I think it's fair to conclude that when being sorry, repentant, and regretful for doing something, that it wasn't an accomplishment but a mistake. Are you sorry, repentant, or regretful when you do something that turns out to be right?

mis·take
/məˈstāk/
noun: mistake; plural noun: mistakes
an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.

.

[The Barbarian]

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.
Not even close.

No avian keel breastbone. No avian ribs. No avian tail. No beak. Teeth. Dinosaur forelegs, not bird wings. Unfused spine. But it has feathers. So did many other dinosaurs.

Well first off, the Google images have the thing looking like a bird...

Ah, you saw it on google, so it must be true, um?

and that is just me speaking from a purely observational standpoint. It looks like a bird.

This is a bird:


Notice large keeled sternum. Fused backbone. No long tail. Pygostyle instead. Bird like wings Bird legs. As you see, your maniraptor dinosaur doesn't look like a bird.

Second, I am sure those who drew the images are aware of your little fossil picture, yet they still draw it looking like a bird.

Birds don't have 4 wings. And they have all that stuff listed above that Microraptor doesn't have.

Apparently not. Again, I guess I have to just sit back and enjoy the show as the bright and educated evolutionist schools me on bird and dinosaur anatomy. I guess the moment you become an evolutionist, you mysteriously begin to gain all of this knowledge of anatomy, molecular chemistry, and carbon dating.

Pretty much a lifetime of finding things out. There's no royal road to biology, either.

I can only hope I have the brain power to keep up....

Most people can get it, if they put in the time to learn about it. Most people lack the discipline to do the necessary work.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Nice to see your definition shifting so quickly.

It is one of those good shifts, though. You see, I am not a dinosaur enthusiast (not saying that you guys are), and quite frankly, there are tons of animals that existed in the past that I am just simply unaware of.

So, when you show me an alleged "bird" with no wings, then I have to make adjustments to my beliefs as the evidence pours in.

Evidence was presented, I acknowledged it, and adjusted my belief...isn't that what any genuine truth-seeker is supposed to do??

Ohhh, I get it...when a scientist does it, it is sincerely the most honorable thing in the world...but when anyone else does it, especially an unbeliever in evolution, it is "definition shifting".

Smh.

First they had to have wings, now it's fine if they didn't (or don't?). You are basically admitting the initial definition you said "Exactly" to is useless. In addition, according to your "eyeball" test, you would be unable to tell if something is a bird or not.

If you have to dig x million years into the past to find an animal of which is a defeater of my "all birds have wings" assessment, then so be it.

All I have to do is make a slight adjustment to the definition, which isn't much.

But at the end of the day, wings or no wings, that STILL doesn't prove that reptiles evolved into birds...which is my biggest contention in the first place and one that you've yet to prove.

I trust readers see that "biblical kind" is just pointless hand waving and useless in a debate about evolution.

The Bible states that God commanded all animals to bring forth after their kind, and I simply argue that a reptile evolving to a bird is not an example of an animal bringing forth after its kind.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. There has never been ANY exception to this rule of thumb, and no matter how much breeding/births you witness, you can BANK on the animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

If you want to believe that a million years into the past, things were otherwise, fine...but that isn't science, that is religion..as you are relying on faith...the unseen.

Great, what "kind" was it then? They were pretty big, so if it's one of the original "kinds" the ark is filling up fast. Maybe you could enlighten us heathens as to what all the "kinds" are? Apparently we just found a new one.

That is where things get tricky. I think "kinds" are limited to genus. Once you leave the genus, you leave the kind.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The truth does seem matter to Dawkins, mistaken as he sometimes can be.

Lets not downplay Dawkins and his erroneous ways.

His arguments with evolutionists like Gould were honest disagreements. As you see, Wells is a member of a cult, and he admits the cult overrides everything else.

We all have disagreements with our peers. No beef from me.

I get it. Not what you thought.

What?

Yep. He just thinks that birds and dinosaurs evolved from thecodont reptiles.

"A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, as many scientists have believed, but from a creature that existed long before.
The Scansoriopteryx, meaning ‘climbing wing,’ could prune the avian evolutionary tree.

It's a maniraptoran dinosaur. Clearly not a bird. It had something like down feathers, but no evidence of actual feathers of the sort you'd find on a bird.

I will let you guys argue that point.