Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[SUPERMAN1929]

We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

 

[cnm]

I don't have proof either but evolutionists pretend it's proven.

Do you think there's a lot of evidence for evolution, more than for any other theory?

No.

So no, not much evidence. I can see you're a scientificy sort of person all right. But what alternative has as much or more evidence?

 

[cnm]

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

So you deny the instant thing out of common sense and you deny the gradual thing out of common sense and you refuse to accept any/much evidence.

You're too scientific for evolution.

 

[cnm]

Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

All of them.

 

[eots]

Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

All of them.

 

[Hollie]

Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

All of them.

View attachment 40272

The usual, pointless spam from the conspiracy theory loon.

 

[Hollie]

We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals Science The Guardian

The above is a first step for your education.

The alternate is for you to show us how "the gawds did it"

 

[Carla_Danger]

We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

You haven't made it over the hump yet. You're still dragging your knuckles. Is that not proof enough?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

So you deny the instant thing out of common sense and you deny the gradual thing out of common sense and you refuse to accept any/much evidence.

You're too scientific for evolution.

I deny it happened because there is no tangible evidence of species jumps. When it arises I will believe. I believe in a god because it's better to me but still just as irrational as evolution.

We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

You haven't made it over the hump yet. You're still dragging your knuckles. Is that not proof enough?

It's funny cause I've always tested much higher than the average.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.

The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.

There are very few species left, four I believe, but lungfish are a currently alive animal that exists in an intermediate stage of development. More developed than a fish with just an air bladder, less developed than an amphibian that will leave the water. There are fossils at this intermediate stage also. Tiktaalik is a famous intermediate fossil that bridges the gap between sea and land and would have early, less developed lungs.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

Read all about it.

Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.

 

[pinqy]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

Read all about it.

Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.

This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?

Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.

 

[orogenicman]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

Read all about it.

Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.

This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.

And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?

Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.

Too bad that you are such an ignorant fool. There is just as much credit in science for proving a long held hypothesis is wrong, as there is in presenting a new hypothesis.

Yes, there have been a couple of cases of outright fraud in the past. And many cases of animal bones in proximity of one another, of similiar critters, and a mistake was made in assigning the bones to the animal. However, in the first case, other scientists have found the fraud, and the person lost his credibility. In the latter case, a set of bones are found by themselves, and the mistake is recognized. No big deal.

Actually, the most egregarous fakes have come from the creationist camp.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?

Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.

Too bad that you are such an ignorant fool. There is just as much credit in science for proving a long held hypothesis is wrong, as there is in presenting a new hypothesis.

Yes, there have been a couple of cases of outright fraud in the past. And many cases of animal bones in proximity of one another, of similiar critters, and a mistake was made in assigning the bones to the animal. However, in the first case, other scientists have found the fraud, and the person lost his credibility. In the latter case, a set of bones are found by themselves, and the mistake is recognized. No big deal.

Actually, the most egregarous fakes have come from the creationist camp.

Example?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae,
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home

They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.

Read all about it.

Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.

This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.

And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?

The fact that it is a computer image and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.