Show Me the Fossils!

[Hollie]

Not humans from monkeys. Biological organisms do not evolve like that. Creationists have creation science which explains origins and how natural selection works and doesn't work. Thus, you are partially correct with microevolution and totally wrong with macroevolution. That's fair.

"Humans from monkeys" is ignorance that is stereotypical coming from Flat Earthers.

 

[surada]

Nice paintings above and bone fragments filled in with modelling material below. Exactly the opposite of what I asked for, plus no explanation of how they prove Darwinian evolution.

Nice . . . try?

You want someone to educate you here ? It's a waste of time.

 

[james bond]

"Humans from monkeys" is ignorance that is stereotypical coming from Flat Earthers.

I have ape and monkey fossils. As well as human fossils. But no transitional, i.e. ape-human, fossils. The reasoning should be there is no connection between humans and monkeys. With creation science, we know God created separate species using some of the same DNA. Otherwise, the twain will never meet. Two separate species. Of course, the atheists are like flat Earthers and never get it.

 

[toobfreak]

I have ape and monkey fossils. As well as human fossils. But no transitional, i.e. ape-human, fossils. The reasoning should be there is no connection between humans and monkeys. With creation science, we know God created separate species using some of the same DNA. Otherwise, the twain will never meet. Two separate species. Of course, the atheists are like flat Earthers and never get it.

Species are like genetic stair-steps of stability while evolution is more of an acute stimulus. The evolutionary triggers happen over comparatively SHORT periods of time compared to a stable species once generated from it, but if one takes Australopithecina and Goriilini and studies their attributes, the commonality between their evolutionary foundations can be seen in Homininae.

 

[james bond]

Species are like genetic stair-steps of stability while evolution of more of a acute stimulus. The evolutionary triggers happen over comparatively SHORT periods of time compared to a stable species once generated from it, but if one takes Australopithecina and Goriilini and studies their attributes, the commonality between their evolutionary foundations can be seen in Homininae.

Sounds like you're just arguing to fit your evolutionary views instead of what the evidence leads one to conclude.

The evidence shows different and we see that they are separate species. Both exist to this day.

Well, what other transitions do you have that really aren't transitions?

 

[toobfreak]

Sounds like you're just arguing to fit your evolutionary views instead of what the evidence leads one to conclude.

The evidence shows different and we see that they are separate species. Both exist to this day.

Don't forget the evidence of the Malay Archipelago. Sure we have separate species. Man and ape have always been separate. Species exist for millions of years. The fallacy is that evolution is a slow gradual process leaving many samples of transitional fossils over a long period of time when in fact evolution happens more like the splitting of a cell with long periods of parallel development and little to show for the evolutionary triggers between the two which happen comparatively in the blink of an eye perhaps in a matter of only decades or hundreds of years.

Not sure why this should be surprising since individual mutation happens in front of us all the time in a single birth.

 

[james bond]

Don't forget the evidence of the Malay Archipelago. Sure we have separate species. Man and ape have always been separate. Species exist for millions of years. The fallacy is that evolution is a slow gradual process leaving many samples of transitional fossils over a long period of time when in fact evolution happens more like the splitting of a cell with long periods of parallel development and little to show for the evolutionary triggers between the two which happen comparatively in the blink of an eye perhaps in a matter of only decades or hundreds of years.

Not sure why this should be surprising since individual mutation happens in front of us all the time in a single birth.

Who are you referring to with Malay Archipelago? Alfred Russel Wallace? He may as well be an evolutionist. I think he thought God created and guided evolution.

""My whole argument tends in that direction [a Designer], though my object in writing 'Man's Place in the Universe' was purely scientific, not religious. Darwin believed that the mental, moral, and spiritual nature of man were alike developed from the lower animals, automatically, by the same processes that evolved his physical structure. I maintain, on the other hand, that there are indications of man having received something that he could not have derived from the lower animals. I do not think it is possible to form any idea beyond this, that when man's body was prepared to receive it, there occurred an inbreathing of spirit--call it what you will. I believe this influx took place at three stages in evolution--the change (1) from the inorganic to the organic, (2) from the plant to the animal, (3) from the animal to the soul of man. Evolution seems to me to fail to account for these tremendous transitions... To suppose that this one particular type of universe extends over all space is, I consider, to have a low idea of the Creator and His power. That would mean monotony, instead of infinite variety, which is the keynote of things as they are known to us. There may be a million universes, but they may all be different--certainly, I should say, not all matter. We are all agreed that ether is the fundamental, matter being its product; and it is possible that ether may have other products which are not perceptible by us. 'Then, as a scientist, you have no difficulty in believing in the existence of consciousness apart from material organism?' None whatever. At the same time, I have a difficulty in conceiving--though there is no reason why it should not exist--pure mind, pure spirit, apart from any substantial envelope or substratum. St. Paul speaks of a 'spiritual body'; that is a body possessed by disembodied spirits. To them it is real enough, but to us it is not corporeal."
-Sir Alfred Russell Wallace[1]"

Alfred Russel Wallace - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

Instead of Darwin or Wallace, creationist Edward Blythe came up with natural selection first.

"According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully expressed" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 18351 (emphasis added). Unlike Darwin, however, Blyth saw natural selection as a preserving factor rather than as "a potentially liberalizing" one. According to this under-appreciated naturalist, the conserving principle was "intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species." Atypical variations, to use Eiseley's words, led to the animal's "discovery and destruction."2

Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3

Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."

Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea

According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully...

www.icr.org

Creationists do not think in terms of millions of years due to the global flood, but mostly go along with long time in order to disprove evolution.

 

[toobfreak]

Who are you referring to with Malay Archipelago? Alfred Russel Wallace? He may as well be an evolutionist. I think he thought God created and guided evolution.

I think by dividing people into two camps as either creationists or evolutionists, you are missing the point that the world has room for both creation and evolution. The world changes over time so while things are created, they must also adapt and evolve as a natural mechanism for survival.

 

[james bond]

I think by dividing people into two camps as either creationists or evolutionists, you are missing the point that the world has room for both creation and evolution. The world changes over time so while things are created, they must also adapt and evolve as a natural mechanism for survival.

I don't think creation and evolution will ever come together.

That said, it's prophecized in the Bible that the evolution side will win and the majority of humankind will be for evolution. It happens right before we face the end of the world. I suspect the Antichrist will show himself in some physical form and perform an abomination.

 

[Hollie]

I don't think creation and evolution will ever come together.

That said, it's prophecized in the Bible that the evolution side will win and the majority of humankind will be for evolution. It happens right before we face the end of the world. I suspect the Antichrist will show himself in some physical form and perform an abomination.

Does Jimmy Swaggert pay you by the word count?

 

[james bond]

Does Jimmy Swaggert pay you by the word count?

Flattie Hollie: Soy un perdedor.

james bond: Soy un ganador. So why don't you crown me?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No museum is going to itself out of business.

You just accused the scientists of being liars.

Because your iron aged handbook says so.GTFO of the science section, you don't belong here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You want someone to educate you here ? It's a waste of time.

The Seymour Flops sockpuppet account only wants attention. He created this account specifically to troll the science section, because he gets off on the attention.

Nothing more.

 

[Hollie]

I have ape and monkey fossils. As well as human fossils. But no transitional, i.e. ape-human, fossils. The reasoning should be there is no connection between humans and monkeys. With creation science, we know God created separate species using some of the same DNA. Otherwise, the twain will never meet. Two separate species. Of course, the atheists are like flat Earthers and never get it.

You have no fossils.