Originally posted by Wesker
Eh, you're hopeless. You're like the exact opposite of Falcon: you have your mind made up, and all proof contrary is just wrong cuz you won't accept it. You cannot be reasoned with.
How am I hopeless , There is no proof that that random mutations add new traits so how did they cause evolution in animals, all you have is speculation and insults.
Edit: I read what you posted and quoted it, yet you say I'm ignorant how?
Originally posted by Mindship
Fossils are like cockroaches. For every one you find, there are thousands you haven't. We've known about dinosaurs, for example, for decades, and we're still finding new species. We've only scratched the surface of what's buried. New kinds of animals will continually be uncovered."Transitional forms" is also subjective. An elephant eg seems like a completed piece of work cuz we're used to it. But a million yrs from now, those looking back would see the elephant as transitional, a species on its way to becoming whatever it will be then.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406093109990001&cid=2194
Originally posted by Mindship
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406093109990001&cid=2194
I'm not reading links,if you wish to debate quote me something from the site.
Originally posted by Mindship
Fossils are like cockroaches. For every one you find, there are thousands you haven't. We've known about dinosaurs, for example, for decades, and we're still finding new species. We've only scratched the surface of what's buried. New kinds of animals will continually be uncovered.
So what gives evolutionist the right to create imaginary creatures with no fossils, We know about dinosaurs cause we have there fossils, Just because we don't have them doesn't mean there out there( They could be) But that's only speculation no fact.
Originally posted by Mindship
"Transitional forms" is also subjective. An elephant eg seems like a completed piece of work cuz we're used to it. But a million yrs from now, those looking back would see the elephant as transitional, a species on its way to becoming whatever it will be then.
I guess we will never know if it changes we can only "SPECULATE", Speculation isn't evidence.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm not reading links,if you wish to debate quote me something from the site.
(April 6) -- Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In two reports today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago say they have uncovered several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish in sediments of former streambeds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole.
The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.
The discovery team called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
"The origin of limbs," Dr. Shubin's team wrote, "probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik."
In an interview, Dr. Shubin, an evolutionary biologist, let himself go. "It's a really amazing, remarkable intermediate fossil," he said. "It's like, holy cow."
Two other paleontologists, commenting on the find in a separate article in the journal, said that a few other transitional fish had been previously discovered from approximately the same Late Devonian time period, 385 million to 359 million years ago. But Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates," they said, that it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles (probably dinosaurs) and today's birds.
The writers, Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden and Jennifer A. Clack of the University of Cambridge in England, are often viewed as rivals to Dr. Shubin's team in the search for intermediate species in the evolution from fish to the first animals to colonize land.
H. Richard Lane, director of paleobiology at the National Science Foundation, said in a statement, "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil 'Rosetta Stones' for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone — fish to land-roaming tetrapods."
The science foundation and the National Geographic Society were among the financial supporters of the research. Besides Dr. Shubin, the principal discoverers were Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr., a Harvard evolutionary biologist. Casts of the fossils will be on view at the Science Museum of London.
Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research, said: "Based on what we already know, we have a very strong reason to think tetrapods evolved from lineages of fishes. This may be a critical phase in that transition that we haven't had before. A good fossil cuts through a lot of scientific argument."
Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in this country, but other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.
One creationist site on the Web (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs /evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins, part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
There's more, but you'll have to go read the link if you want it.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Archaeopteryx was dated younger then it's descendant by the way.EDIT: It is also a full bird, not a earth bound creature with wings, therefore not a transitional form.
That last paragraph is peripheral to the point of the article. Please address the 90% which precedes it.
Actually...never mind. But thanks for the fascinating glimpse.
Originally posted by Blue nocturnewhat, when it's got dinosaur feet, dinosaur-like wings and a dinosaur head? Yeah that's a right bird that isn't it. I think I'll call it a pheonix.
Archaeopteryx was dated younger then it's descendant by the way.EDIT: It is also a full bird, not a earth bound creature with wings, therefore not a transitional form.
Originally posted by Mindshipclapclappingclap I knew they'd find it sooner or later.
(April 6) -- Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.In two reports today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago say they have uncovered several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish in sediments of former streambeds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole.
The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.
The discovery team called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
"The origin of limbs," Dr. Shubin's team wrote, "probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik."
In an interview, Dr. Shubin, an evolutionary biologist, let himself go. "It's a really amazing, remarkable intermediate fossil," he said. "It's like, holy cow."
Two other paleontologists, commenting on the find in a separate article in the journal, said that a few other transitional fish had been previously discovered from approximately the same Late Devonian time period, 385 million to 359 million years ago. But Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates," they said, that it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles (probably dinosaurs) and today's birds.
The writers, Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden and Jennifer A. Clack of the University of Cambridge in England, are often viewed as rivals to Dr. Shubin's team in the search for intermediate species in the evolution from fish to the first animals to colonize land.
H. Richard Lane, director of paleobiology at the National Science Foundation, said in a statement, "These exciting discoveries are providing fossil 'Rosetta Stones' for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone — fish to land-roaming tetrapods."
The science foundation and the National Geographic Society were among the financial supporters of the research. Besides Dr. Shubin, the principal discoverers were Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr., a Harvard evolutionary biologist. Casts of the fossils will be on view at the Science Museum of London.
Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, who was not involved in the research, said: "Based on what we already know, we have a very strong reason to think tetrapods evolved from lineages of fishes. This may be a critical phase in that transition that we haven't had before. A good fossil cuts through a lot of scientific argument."
Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in this country, but other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.
One creationist site on the Web (emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs /evid1.htm) declares that "there are no transitional forms," adding: "For example, not a single fossil with part fins, part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."
Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
There's more, but you'll have to go read the link if you want it.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Your English is fine, Homo habillis is similar to austalopithecine apes. They both have long arms,short legs and and similar skeletal structure.
Homo haballis had fingers and toes that were great for climbing and there jaws were similar to today's apes.Their 600 cc average cranial capacity similar ot austalopithecine.EDIT: Homo haballis is more ape like and is no way related to man.
Originally posted by Da preacherHe's a dumbass. He doesn't understand genetic coding and how evolution works.
Excuse me?
He thinks evolution is changing of an animal over 1 generation from a mutation.
In actuall fact evolution is mainly "Genetic Variation" and "Environmental Variation" because everything changes, and their the main causes. The mutants, usually are the ones that die.
Why else would it be called "adapting" to one's environment?