Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

Are you sure that there is a common ancestor? Of course, if you buy macroevolution, then you must also buy one class evolving into another as well, and at some point, members of one kingdom evolving into another.

I had stuck with species though because there exists no series of fossils that clearly show a transition from one species into another, much less showing one class or kingdom evolving into another.

 

[dahermit]

Are you sure that there is a common ancestor? Of course, if you buy macroevolution, then you must also buy one class evolving into another as well, and at some point, members of one kingdom evolving into another.

I had stuck with species though because there exists no series of fossils that clearly show a transition from one species into another, much less showing one class or kingdom evolving into another.

Are you sure that you have kept current with the fossil discoveries? A couple of years ago they found a small dinosaur in which the fossil clearly had feathers (A very rare occurrence inasmuch as soft tissues usually decay instead of fossilize.).

Also, in the event of class or Kingdom evolution, it would be easier to perceive that simple (very primitive life forms), had evolved small changes that were the beginning of different complicated life forms rather than complicated life forms changing in the class/kingdom/phylum/family/genus, etc. stage of evolution.

Oh, you can add Echidna to Platypus as "transitional species". Both lay eggs. Both are mammals. Both (males only), have a poisonous spur in their hand leg. One has a rubbery bill. One has spines like a hedge hog.

 

[PLC1]

OK, Palerider, your turn. Orogenicman, dahermit, and I have, between the three of us, posted perhaps 1/10 of 1% of all of the evidence there is behind the theory of evolution. That is actually a pretty good percentage, as all of the evidence would fill volumes.

Now, what is the evidence that space aliens visited Earth, seeded it with life, and then used genetic engineering to produce the life forms we see today? That was your alternative, as I recall.

Or, if I have misrepresented your alternative (I'm not going to call it a theory), please, elaborate and explain what it may be.

 

[palerider]

. Secondly. since I am an atheist, what church do you think I attend. Third, since you yourself have pointed out that the Earth is not a closed system, how is it that you believe that evolution of life on Earth can violate the laws of thermodynamics?

You are a member in good standing of the church of AGW. You clearly worhip at the altar and have a very strong faith.

The laws of thermodynamics call for more entropy, not less.

 

[palerider]

Your response doesn't actually answer my question, does it? "Man did not exist when this happened?" Evidence of change doesn't constitute evidence of cause, but does rule out certain possibilities and rule in others because the nature of said evidence.

Shuck and jive. Bob and weave. And still no hard observed evidence to support your claim.

 

[palerider]

The Earth is not a closed system. Transitional species exist because all species are transitional. So you believe that ancient aliens travelling untold gazillion light years to "seed" a lonely rock in a galactic outback for no apparent reason is more plausible than species evolving on their own on a world which is well within the habitible zone of its native star. Well, isn't that special!

Actually, you have no idea what I believe. I have never stated what I believe. One more statement that you can not support. Thinking isn't your best thing, is it? It seems that you operate entirely on one assumption after another.

 

[palerider]

ID IS about God, and only about God. Did you not read the transcript of the Dover trial?

Once more, you simply assume that a trial can define what is and isn't. I quite a few athiests who don't buy evolution but have no problem with ID. More claims that you can't support. Do you ever make a claim that you can?

 

[palerider]

The correct word is transitional, not transitory, but what the heck. Go ahead and make up your own vocabulary if you wish.

I showed you examples of the word transitory in use, and provided you a definition. Sorry your vocabulary is so limited.


And again, it is a nice story to tell yourself that every species is in transition, and every fossil is transitory, but alas, that simply isn't the case.

 

[palerider]

The latest solar minimum has, in fact, ended. The sun has been very active all summer, and has had numerous sunspots and CME (coronal mass ejections).

Here is an image of the sun taken by SOHO today:

Better think again, and prepare for a very cold winter.

 

[palerider]

OK, Palerider, your turn. Orogenicman, dahermit, and I have, between the three of us, posted perhaps 1/10 of 1% of all of the evidence there is behind the theory of evolution. That is actually a pretty good percentage, as all of the evidence would fill volumes.

Actually, you have not posted even the first bit of evidence to support your claims but I suppose if your faith is strong enough, you can convince yourself that anything constitutes evidence.

 

[palerider]

I have to ask why you guys are showing the platypus? Are you trying to suggest that they are a transitory form between bird and mammal? Doesn't your theory say that birds evolved from reptiles? By your own theory, no "half bird half mammal" could represent an intermediate form no matter how transitional it looks.

 

[dahermit]

I have to ask why you guys are showing the platypus? Are you trying to suggest that they are a transitory form between bird and mammal? Doesn't your theory say that birds evolved from reptiles? By your own theory, no "half bird half mammal" could represent an intermediate form no matter how transitional it looks.

No, they are interesting in the fact that it is a mammal that lays eggs, has a poison gland, has a bill instead of a mouth. Clearly a different species than other mammals/marsupials. Could it be evolution at work?
But, do not respond to the dinosaur that had feathers what ever you do.

 

[PLC1]

Actually, you have not posted even the first bit of evidence to support your claims but I suppose if your faith is strong enough, you can convince yourself that anything constitutes evidence.

We have posted no evidence at all that you accept, that is true. Now, what evidence is there that your idea is correct?

 

[PLC1]

I showed you examples of the word transitory in use, and provided you a definition. Sorry your vocabulary is so limited.


And again, it is a nice story to tell yourself that every species is in transition, and every fossil is transitory, but alas, that simply isn't the case.

So you say.

Every species is transitional. Every animal is transitory, as well, as it moves from place to place.

So, what evidence is there that your idea is correct?

 

[GenSeneca]

By your own theory, no "half bird half mammal" could represent an intermediate form no matter how transitional it looks.

Not even manbearpig?