Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

And what would a transitional being look like to you????


Evolution is not linear. Its basically a bush. Or a tree. Lots of different branches, some that go extinct and some that survive. Creating different variations of animals. Like all the different types of birds, or on a larger scale all the different types of mammals. On a smaller scale, all the different types of beetles. The further you go into the bush the less like those at the tips of the tree, which is what we see in the fossil record. All the mammals are one branch. On that branch are other smaller branches. Like carnivora. Tons of carnivores went extinct. before humans even existed. Dogs get less dog-like the further you go into the bush. All the carnivores begin to get more similar the further you go into the bush.

And what would a transitional being look like to you????


Evolution is not linear. Its basically a bush. Or a tree. Lots of different branches, some that go extinct and some that survive. Creating different variations of animals. Like all the different types of birds, or on a larger scale all the different types of mammals. On a smaller scale, all the different types of beetles. The further you go into the bush the less like those at the tips of the tree, which is what we see in the fossil record. All the mammals are one branch. On that branch are other smaller branches. Like carnivora. Tons of carnivores went extinct. before humans even existed. Dogs get less dog-like the further you go into the bush. All the carnivores begin to get more similar the further you go into the bush.

What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?

What else should we be seeing? Do you think there should be a half 1 animal half another?

No but if creatures really did turn into different ones over millions of years there would be endless fossil trails of that. They would progressively have changed from 100% this to 99.999% this and .001% that, then 99.998 this followed by .002 that and so on for thousands of generations, not a single specimen of this has been observed, except in the twilight zone of Professor Darwin's imagination.

There are so many sub-species of living species today. They would be the closest thing to your 99.9% thingy. Now for your simple mind, imagine hundreds of millions of years of sub-species, and sub-species having their own sub-species etc.


Even in your fantasy world of 99.999% thingy, it would not be possible to tell the difference especially in fossils. And when you could tell the difference, you would just say they are separate species or just a variation of the kind. You would not be able to tell if 2 fossils are in the same lineage or from cousin lineages. As evolution is a messy bush not linear.

And when you add that only a very small amount of species get fossilized (and, only a very few amount of fossils that exist will ever be found, most will have been destroyed by geological events, and even the ones that are not destroyed most will never be found. imagine how many there are in antarctica and in the ocean?)

You're the posterchild for the Kruger Dunning effect.

With top ten worse karma on the site.

Millions and billions of sub-species and millions of years, how awesome, please continue.

Where exactly can all of those millions of sub-species be found in the fossil record?

In other words.... there are no transitional fossils what so ever, Professor Darwin totally hoaxed the scientifically illiterate and baptized them into his Church of Evolution with fairy tales from the Premordial Soup Wizard.

Last Edited by DGN on 05/17/2017 04:23 PM

No,



was meant for the simple mind of creationists. It was meant to make it easier to understand in a hypothetical way. A sub-species of a sub-species would just be a new sub-species of the whole species, but this gets complicated with ring species.

If a species had 2 sub-species

A and B


Sub-species A can split into multiple populations, and after enough change a population would be considered a new sub-species while still having the original subspecies in the original population. If this keeps happening:


Lets say sub-species A had 10 sub-species in its lineage. If sub-species A1-9 go extinct but the 10th still exists, and the 10th sub-species cannot reproduce with sub-species B, they would be completely different species to the sub-species B and its descendants with no living links to them. They would still technically be new species even if 1-9 did not go extinct but if they go extinct then they have zero links to sub-species B.

This has been shown with the Ensatina Salamanders. Original salamander population separated and circled around the San Joaquin Valley and by the time the salamanders got back to the original point, they had evolved into lots of sub-species around the valley and the sub-species that got back to the original point, they were too genetically different to reproduce with the original sub-species so are different species.

No, in real life every fossil is transitional

Because they couldn't be intelligently designed so every one has to be an accident? What did Professor Darwin tell the Church of Evolution about 'transitional' fossils? Did he find one?

List of transitional fossils:

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Love how you start out with 2 fully formed complex organisms, followed by an epic scenario with.

Could you be bothered to explain how you got your original pair (which happen to be x and y) in the first place?

And all this happened 5,777 years ago?

"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely.[1][2]ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitio​nal_fossils"

Last Edited by DGN on 05/18/2017 06:46 PM

That only traces back to the creation of Adam long after dinosaurs were gone.

So you understand there are transitional fossils. Good. Now you can stop asking Mr Darwin for 'just one' every day.

If you do not understand what that means then you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever

lol what??? original pair????

fully formed??? what???? why would they not be fully formed??? why would there be only 2??? evolution is about populations evolving over time through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and mutations. you really should not be trying to debunk evolution when you don't have a single clue about it.

lol

again


You postulate a whole scenario of evotardism.

I'm asking you where you get your props for your scenario and you simply state they fall from the sky and need no explanation.

That's like I would explain to a child how a baby is born and I casually leave out daddy and mommy.

First of all, time does not create anything, never have, never will.

Second, natural selection does not create anything, it is a selective mechanism, they would have named it natural creation if it actually had those properties.

Geneflow, genetic drift and mutations, ouch only 3 more hiding possibilities.

Third, geneflow, genes have richely flowed all over the globe, plenty of more mutated humans have been created, but no new information has ever been added to the genome.

Fourth, genetic drift, really, another chance and luck algorithm/argument, how scientific on your behalf.

Fifth, mutations, yeah mutations, plenty of animals and humans have mutated but they remain exactly the same.
Again, no new genetic information, no upgrades.

Just to spice this epic discussion, you are confident that beneficial mutations actually do exist?
Do you agree or disagree that currently mapped genomes have set outcomes, ergo limits exists. Or do you just ignore this willfully?

Evolution is descent with modification. Populations and gene pools change over time. There is never only 2 individuals in 1 species unless they are about to go extinct or plants that have polyploid mutations creating new species.

Natural selection adapts populations of species to their environment changing the overall DNA of the population. Mutations create the variations for it to select on. When 2 populations of species merge back together, they add new information to each others gene pools.

In the 10 lizards they put on a new island, in 30 years they adapted to the new environment and new food source by evolving a larger head, stronger bite force and a new organ to help digest the new food they started eating.(If they brought those lizards back to their original location that would be introducing new information to the original population of those lizards) That is evolution in a nut shell. And thats just in 30 years. Gene duplication makes it possible to add "information" as it still keeps the original gene but the duplicated gene can now be subject to mutations and create new functions/uses. Mutations that caused lactose tolerance in adulthood is new information in humans. Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein that connects another defunct protein onto that one, the result is their cells are protected from retroviruses like HIV. That is new information, new function.

Technically isn't a bigger head and stronger bite force an upgrade? If it helps them in their new environment it is an upgrade, at least scientifically. And that mutation in humans that causes extreme strength would be considered an upgrade if it was useful. Back in the day it would be extremely useful, today its only use is sexual selection which is still beneficial which is what evolution is all about.

Son I have seen your post for quite awhile on GLP, and I hate to break it to you but Mr. Darwin is dead.

When did the fusion of our 2nd chromosome take place in the eyes of creationists??


Neanderthals also have this fusion and so do the denisovans.

No way he's making a come back, it's just that he has to start from way back, you know mud monsters, the whole thing.

All chromosomes were made concurrently together or they would be as dysfunctional as a blueprint with missing specs.
"And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul. 8 Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad." Ge2:7