I repeat from my Post #3
So far, no evolution nay-sayer has offered a better explantion for that set of fossils.
I responded to this. Can we get GeoffP to comment before I reply to everyone? I really respect him.
I repeat from my Post #3
So far, no evolution nay-sayer has offered a better explantion for that set of fossils.
It's a good thing for evolution that we do not have a reliable account of any of those things.Evolution can't explain consciousness and the existence of life after death or reincarnation.
Evolution doesn't need to explain "the existence of life after death or reincarnation", since neither have been shown to actually exist.Evolution can't explain consciousness and the existence of life after death or reincarnation.
Er what?Also if a man lives to a paranormal age, say 250 years of age, then how can evolution explain how this man lived to be 250 years old at the time of his death?
I responded to this. Can we get GeoffP to comment before I reply to everyone? I really respect him.
Ardipithecus appears to be the definitive "missing link" from tree dweller to upright walking. The fossils are dated about 4.5 MYA, considerably older than the specimen you refer to.The 2.8 million-year old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged. The discovery in Ethiopia suggest climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.
Exactly! And have you ever seen Star Wars? How does evolution explain Wookies?Also if a man lives to a paranormal age, say 250 years of age, then how can evolution explain how this man lived to be 250 years old at the time of his death?
Hi friend. Care to respond to post #45? Or at least just the parts I replied to you.You do me too much honour. Which is it you wish me to respond to? Convergent evolution, Equus, or other?
Midichlorians.Exactly! And have you ever seen Star Wars? How does evolution explain Wookies?
It does shoot down the notion they lived on the savannah. It does not specify their diet, and in fact indicates with fairly high probability that they foraged and fed in other ways and on other things than the other great apes do today.fraggle said:The location of the site indicates that these first walking apes were forest dwellers and ate a herbivorous diet augmented by the protein in arthropods and other very small animals, like all of today's non-human apes. This shoots down the common notion that they lived on the savannah,
This is a really interesting example for Ophiolite's thread on the creationist tendency to argue from authority.garbanzo said:. Can we get GeoffP to comment before I reply to everyone? I really respect him.
It does shoot down the notion they lived on the savannah. It does not specify their diet, and in fact indicates with fairly high probability that they foraged and fed in other ways and on other things than the other great apes do today.
This is a really interesting example for Ophiolite's thread on the creationist tendency to argue from authority.
I have not. I contrasted two different things in order to demonstrate that evolution cannot ever be falsified. You see, the point that you missed is that evolution is all based on a little fairy tale that we all descend from a common ancestor, and billions of years of accumulated mutation diversified the original LUCA into everything alive today, and that it can be demonstrated on the basis of the fact that we all share common characteristics and that by analyzing and categorizing such common characteristics we can build a tree of life all the way into the past with the LUCA at its root. That's basic Evolution 101. The most basic evolutionist claim.
Except it doesn't hold true even for a cursory examination of evidence. We share a lot of characteristics with animals that we can't possibly share a common ancestor with that had such characteristics. So, in order to deal with the contradictory evidence, evolutionists coined the epicycle called 'convergent evolution'.
A deep examination of the evolutionary theory will cause you to find many of those 'explanations' necessary to counter-claim obvious pieces of evidence that contradict primary evolutionary claims. This is not a sign of strength in a theory no more than it was for geocentrism.
There is plenty of evidence against evolution. It is simply waved away with fairy tales like 'convergent evolution'.
There are plenty of structures that could not be arrived at without proceeding intermediate forms. They are called 'irreducibly complex' ones.
Again, incorrect. The problem is that DNA is not evidence of evolution, per se.
Again, incorrect. The 'progression' of fossil from eohippus to horses use fossil from different continents, frequently unrelated environments
Why, exactly? Are you really making the claim that we ought to stick with something known to be incorrect
Side comment: bats are not rodents. I would not be surprised if they were closer to rodents than birds, nevertheless, though - your point stands.geoff said:? Why is a bat a rodent, and share more DNA with rodents than it does with a bird?
Side comment: bats are not rodents. I would not be surprised if they were closer to rodents than birds, nevertheless, though - your point stands.
You could just have said "Rats!"Well fuck me. All right, I forgot that bit of Mammalogy. Jesus. Oh well, it's been a long week already. Fucking Chiroptera. And their origin isn't clear but supposed to be closer to Primates with a position double speciation event. Ah well: a small rodentlike ancestor, anyway. Fuck it, I call all that Rodentia and I don't care. Stem group. Bah.
Goddamn it.