Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[Bodhi]

adaptations and mutations are very observable thus making evolution as a whole true and scientific

I admit theres no tangible proof that I can show you about the existence of a Diety.......

then shut the fuck up

 

[The True Flesh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Evidence_of_common_descent.html

These are excerpts from your own links!!!

Do fossils validate common descent?

Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent, a purely anatomical resemblance to living species is a form of strong supportive evidence. Some more recent fossils contain traces of tissue or DNA that can be used to determine in what way the fossil is related to living species.[7] As mentioned below, this offers direct evidence for evolution.

The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".

Where are the missing links ????

I already acknowledged that there are chromosomal similarities between many different creatures but that is not PROOF of common ancestry. ONLY FOSSIL EVIDENCE WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

Huge titangraphs about common ancestry and STILL NOT A SHRED OF FOSSIL PROOF !!!!!

The DNA similarities and chromosomal similarities are good fuel for speculation but only FOSSIL evidence would conclusively prove that one class of animal ever "evolved" into another

Until someone provides that, THESE THEORIES WILL BE ALL SPECULATION AND DISMAL FAILURE !!!!!

Sure horses evolved from smaller horses through adaptation but where is the proof that a horse came from a non-mammal???

I NEED FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF INTER-CLASS EVOLUTION OF WHICH NO ONE YET HAS PROVIDED ONE SHRED.

CARE TO TRY AGAIN???

PEACE

 

[bambu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Evidence_of_common_descent.html

These are excerpts from your own links!!!

Do fossils validate common descent?

Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent, a purely anatomical resemblance to living species is a form of strong supportive evidence. Some more recent fossils contain traces of tissue or DNA that can be used to determine in what way the fossil is related to living species.[7] As mentioned below, this offers direct evidence for evolution.

The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".

Where are the missing links ????

I already acknowledged that there are chromosomal similarities between many different creatures but that is not PROOF of common ancestry. ONLY FOSSIL EVIDENCE WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

Huge titangraphs about common ancestry and STILL NOT A SHRED OF FOSSIL PROOF !!!!!

The DNA similarities and chromosomal similarities are good fuel for speculation but only FOSSIL evidence would conclusively prove that one class of animal ever "evolved" into another

Until someone provides that, THESE THEORIES WILL BE ALL SPECULATION AND DISMAL FAILURE !!!!!

Sure horses evolved from smaller horses through adaptation but where is the proof that a horse came from a non-mammal???

I NEED FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF INTER-CLASS EVOLUTION OF WHICH NO ONE YET HAS PROVIDED ONE SHRED.

CARE TO TRY AGAIN???

PEACE

And the scientific foundation for European ethnic supremacy....

 

[Disciplined InSight]

This thread is gonna be interesting...

 

[Bodhi]

These are excerpts from your own links!!!

Do fossils validate common descent?

Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent, a purely anatomical resemblance to living species is a form of strong supportive evidence. Some more recent fossils contain traces of tissue or DNA that can be used to determine in what way the fossil is related to living species.[7] As mentioned below, this offers direct evidence for evolution.

The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".

Read the rest of it jackass. Fossils are used to obtain DNA or tissue samples which in turn tell us what we need to know and is strong evidence of common ancestry. Where are the missing links? It's simply telling you what a missing link is. When scientists find a transitional fossil, it's called a missing link. No wonder you motherfuckers don't understand shit. You can't understand a god damn paragraph

 

[Bodhi]

Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent,

First of all, NOT USUALLY does not mean CANNOT AT ALL. Secondly, finding fossils are not extremely common and entire reconstructions of a being is rare; that is what is implied by that statement. They are not DIRECT evidence USUALLY, but that doesn't mean that we can't see evolution taking place through fossil records.

"The fossil record , for example, completely bears out the Darwinian theory that all land vertebrates are descended from fish, and that all mammals and birds are descended from reptiles. In other words, we find fish in early strata where there are no land vertebrates. And we find reptiles and amphibians before we find mammals or birds. Later we find both mammals and birds, alongside reptiles and amphibians.

If we were to find fossils of animals with backbones living on land, older than the earliest fossils of fish, or if we were to find mammals and birds in strata earlier than reptiles, or if we were to find whales in strata earlier than mammals, these would be major shocks to biological theory. They would probably not lead to the abandonment of evolution itself, but would upset some very well-established views about the specific course evolution has taken. If fossils of living things were found randomly in all ages of rocks, with rabbits, birds, and flowering plants in the earliest strata, evolution itself would have to be abandoned as an account of how the different kinds of living organisms came into existence."

 

[Bodhi]

I NEED FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF INTER-CLASS EVOLUTION OF WHICH NO ONE YET HAS PROVIDED ONE SHRED.

CARE TO TRY AGAIN???

PEACE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish

Would you like to try again?

 

[Bodhi]

Also if you look at a modern platypus, you will see mammal, bird, and reptile features.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2008-05-08-platypus-genetic-map_N.htm

 

[judahxulu]

Without ANY FOSSIL evidence

false

theres more fossil evidence to discredit evolution. this is fact.

These are excerpts from your own links!!!

Do fossils validate common descent?

Although fossils are usually not direct evidence in favour of common descent, a purely anatomical resemblance to living species is a form of strong supportive evidence. Some more recent fossils contain traces of tissue or DNA that can be used to determine in what way the fossil is related to living species.[7] As mentioned below, this offers direct evidence for evolution.

The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".

Read the rest of it jackass. Fossils are used to obtain DNA or tissue samples which in turn tell us what we need to know and is strong evidence of common ancestry. Where are the missing links? It's simply telling you what a missing link is. When scientists find a transitional fossil, it's called a missing link. No wonder you motherfuckers don't understand shit. You can't understand a god damn paragraph

Yall cant understand god damn common sense. It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT. smh...were talking about every fucking species transitioning from other species over a loooong ass period of time. there would be more huge clusters of these fossils if that was the case. darwin was fucking self-taught for petes sake. the nigga was not A REAL SCIENTIST at all.

 

[Bodhi]

but y'all claim that human evolution is well proven and can't provide a single shred of convincing proof in this thread. What a fail.

Recent discoveries (Malapa)
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/malapa-fossils/fischman-text
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/malapa-fossils/lineage-graphic

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Hundreds of fossils found shows when seas creatures started walking on land.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/scottish-fossil-trove-shows-when-sea-creatures-started-walking-on-land.html

 

[Bodhi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
http://elucy.org/
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis

 

[Bodhi]

Yall cant understand god damn common sense. It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT. smh...were talking about every fucking species transitioning from other species over a loooong ass period of time. there would be more huge clusters of these fossils if that was the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

now shut the fuck up

 

[judahxulu]

Hundreds of fossils found shows when seas creatures started walking on land.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-05/scottish-fossil-trove-shows-when-sea-creatures-started-walking-on-land.html

so they all came from scotland? why aint they nowhere else?

 

[Bodhi]

theres more fossil evidence to discredit evolution. this is fact.

don't talk about it, be about it

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Wow, really? These sorts of finds are rare because the process of fossilization requires unique situations. Look at the process that Egyptians used to preserve mummies. Without that, boddies would decay.

http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/how_are_fossils_formed.html

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm

Btw, you don't have to be a scientist, paleontologist, or archeologist to find fossils.

http://www.waow.com/story/17419926/man-finds-rare-fossil-in-portage-county-backyard

And to answer your question, they have found other transitional land walking sea creatures, including this one in Canada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?pagewanted=all

 

[judahxulu]

Yall cant understand god damn common sense. It would be a shitload OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY THAT. smh...were talking about every fucking species transitioning from other species over a loooong ass period of time. there would be more huge clusters of these fossils if that was the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

now shut the fuck up

one fish? lol. how bout you shut the fuck up.

The law of increasing entropy

explain how evolution and that can co-exist

 

[judahxulu]

theres more fossil evidence to discredit evolution. this is fact.

don't talk about it, be about it

google it nigga. shit like forbidden archaeology, plenty private museums in europe show this shit. this shit has been known for years. if u aint heard of what im saying then its pointless discussing it with u because that means u didnt study all angles therefore ur position in this convo is inferior to mine. no point in u arguing against a point u dont know shit about.

 

[Bodhi]

It's more than one, dummy. Read up

 

[Bodhi]

The 2nd law of thermdyn does not support evolution but that doesn't mean evolution can't happen -- actually, it's an observable phenomenon. New discoveries in the future may change understanding of evolution or the second law and the universe as a whole, but it's reaching to hope or think that it disproves evolution.