|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: I'm claiming that the massive gap in morphology and function between pre-C and C biota is not consistent with the theory of evolution. You haven't demonstrated that this gap is real. Please show us all of the species that lived during that time.
Where is the vast number of transitional fossils that are required to bridge the huge gap? You claim they don't exist, so prove it.
You need similarities to form a nested hierarchy. And that's what living species have, similarities.
I can't see how the profound dissimilarities between pre-C biota and C biota can form a nested hierarchy. You are forgetting about the similarities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
It proves common ancestry and evolution.Dredge writes:
You seem to be to be at odds with science itself ... I've been told repeatedly that science doesn't prove anything.In common parlance, prove means proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that definitely applies to common ancestry.
Nice try, con-man, but no cigar. By saying "It proves common ancestry and evolution", you've painted yourself into a corner - since science can't prove it, no one can prove it. So you've uttered a falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: By saying "It proves common ancestry and evolution", you've painted yourself into a corner - since science can't prove it, no one can prove it. Troll gonna troll. In common parlance, prove means proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Live with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Oh, so you know that human descended from bacteria?Taq writes:
Do you know that humans descended from bacteria or not?
I know that the evidence is consistent with humans and bacteria sharing a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8554 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
So you've uttered a falsehood. No, Taq was right. Nested hierarchy proves common ancestry and evolution. You don't like that fact so you try to ignore it.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Do you know that humans descended from bacteria or not? I know that the evidence is consistent with humans and bacteria sharing a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Oh, so you can prove that humans descended from bacteria, but science can't. Interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Losing hurts, don't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Losing hurts, don't it? Troll gonna troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8554 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Oh, so you can prove that humans descended from bacteria, but science can't. Interesting. Science did already. That's where his info came from. Pay attention, Dredge.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Not at all. I accept that nested hierarchies exist within phyla. What's lacking, viz-a-viz the theory of evolution, are fossil links between the various phyla, which are necessary if one wants to claim that the entire fossil record forms a nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I hate to see a grown man cry, but you brought it on yourself. Not my fault ... I'm just doing my job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8554 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
What's lacking, viz-a-viz the theory of evolution, are fossil links between the various phyla ... Not lacking, but, unknown to you. Have you ever been to a natural history museum? If you go you can actually see some of these lacking transitionals.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Not at all. I accept that nested hierarchies exist within phyla. So you accept common ancestry of phyla?
What's lacking, viz-a-viz the theory of evolution, are fossil links between the various phyla, which are necessary if one wants to claim that the entire fossil record forms a nested hierarchy. Apparently you are unaware of the genetic evidence which forms a nested hierarchy between the phyla.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
APauling666 writes:
This article says you're wrong: Science did already. "Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof ... all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science."https://www.psychologytoday.com/...cience-i-scientific-proof
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024