Originally posted by queeq
Nothing. I think it's an absurd idea that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs. If you're saying we were different we prolly were a transitional species of dinosaur.
No, I'm not saying that Humans lived with dinosaurs. What I am saying is that there is an unbroken chain of life that extends from us, and all living things today, into the remote past. Therefore, at the time of the dinosaurs, our ancestors, ancestors, ancestors did live with them.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life finds a way means that any rule us humans place on nature is not valid to nature.
True indeed; Darwinian evolution is a prime example.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
100 million years ago most of the animals on the Earth were different then today. 200 million years ago most of the animals on the Earth were different then today or even 100 million years ago.
This is absolutely true; but not in the sense that you prescribe. Animals--including human beings--have undergone "variation." Obviously "variation" produces changes within--not just animals (mammals)--but organisms as a whole! As the Cambrian Period reflects, it would be a mistake to assume that organisms today were drastically different in the finite past. Again, all we see are classic examples of microevolution in action.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How did that happen?
Microevolution. C'mon now....
Originally posted by ushomefree
True indeed; Darwinian evolution is a prime example.
And that includes Christianity.
Originally posted by ushomefree
This is absolutely true; but not in the sense that you prescribe. Animals--including human beings--have undergone "variation." Obviously "variation" produces changes within--not just animals (mammals)--but organisms as a whole! As the Cambrian Period reflects, it would be a mistake to assume that organisms today were drastically different in the finite past. Again, all we see are classic examples of microevolution in action.Microevolution. C'mon now....
Microevolution is evolution. There is no solid line between one species and another in the big picture.
Originally posted by ushomefree
True indeed; Darwinian evolution is a prime example.This is absolutely true; but not in the sense that you prescribe. Animals--including human beings--have undergone "variation." Obviously "variation" produces changes within--not just animals (mammals)--but organisms as a whole! As the Cambrian Period reflects, it would be a mistake to assume that organisms today were drastically different in the finite past. Again, all we see are classic examples of microevolution in action.
Microevolution. C'mon now....
you realize macro evolution is like saying microevolution after say a certain period of time. their the same thing on a diferent time scale
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that includes Christianity.
Stay on topic, please. Religion has nothing to do with biology.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Microevolution is evolution. There is no solid line between one species and another in the big picture.
You are grossly in error, and "biological information" (DNA) confirms this.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you realize macro evolution is like saying microevolution after say a certain period of time. their the same thing on a diferent time scale
Your statement is easy to conceptualize, but it isn't true. Human beings, for example, a billion years from now--or whatever time scale (or environmental conditions)--will not develop feathers or gills; information needed to develop such attributes are absent from the human genome (the total sum of DNA). Don't you understand that?!
Originally posted by ushomefreeI'm rather bored of you so I'm just going to differ to Cracraft (1983) to describe pretty much exactly what Harun Yahya and his ridiculous websites and you, by association, are doing:
Or maybe Darwinists are confusing the argument? By the way, what exatcly did you disagree with? More importantly, what was dishonest about the article? Did you read the letter sent to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson?
(1) All Yahya is doing is quote-mining and distorting the words and intentions of Martin, Feduccia, Whetstone etc. etc. Distortion and false argumentum ad verecundiam. These authors disagree with a therapod origin for birds. However while they dispute from which reptiles birds originated they don't disagree that birds have a reptilian evolutionary origin.
(2) & (3) Lulz in general at a) any implication that proponents of therapod to modern bird evolution believe Archaeopteryx is part of a direct ancestral lineage from therapods to modern birds. b) that Archaeopteryx is "just a bird" with "insignificant" reptilian features, when it's clearly a mosaic of bird and reptilian features is thus an excellent example of a transitional form.
You're a "sceathers" strawman.