@sonship saidThank you! A reasoned and reasonable reply, and it's fine that I didn't ask you, we're all in this discussion together....Fast - track evolution caused by sudden changes in environment, I've given credence to this idea since I first read 'The Neck of the Giraffe' many years ago.
@Indonesia-PhilI ask again, what is your explanation for gaps in the fossil record?
You didn't ask me. But I'll give you a serious answer.
If I was a biologist or paleontologist I would look more in the direction of something SUDDEN causing changes in animals. Rather than gradualism I would explore the possibility of something like cataclysmic event ...[text shortened]... mething LIKE this when he proposed "punctuated equilibrium." I said something LIKE what I imagine.
And whilst I'm on this...Anyone who says that there is no living evidence for evolution or transitional species must have their eyes (or their mind) closed. Snakes look like other snakes because they share a recent common ancestor, and have evolved their slight differences depending upon their environment. Lizards look like other lizards, ditto the above, there are so many different rat - like creatures I really don't think I need to list them, and they are all closely related. And so it goes on, and then there are the apes. On the island of Sulawesi (where I live) each peninsula of the island has macacque monkeys which are almost the same, but some are blacker/browner than others, and each population has evolved its' own colouring because the populations have been isolated for a few thousand years. Evolution at work which can be observed, and which is happening now. We share 99 percent of our DNA with chimps, and just that small difference in our DNA results in such a marked difference in our appearance, but we are both clearly apes, and are clearly closely related, as we are only less so with Orang Utans, Gorillas and so on.
We share some of our DNA with tulips, we and tulips are related if you go back far enough, because all life shares a common beginning. That's evolution for you....
@eladar saidSeeing is believing, analyzing and comparing DNA is believing, carbon - dating rocks is believing. It's called science.
@Indonesia-Phil
Thanks for sharing your belief.
@indonesia-phil saidYep, thanks for sharing your beliefs.
Seeing is believing, analyzing and comparing DNA is believing, carbon - dating rocks is believing. It's called science.
@caissad4 saidYour rules don't apply to God, extraordinary proof isn't required, many come to know the Lord through the simplest of revelations. Since God is personable it is through a relationship that people get to know Him. I doubt that is your goal is to find any proof for God, it seems that your real goal is simply to put down others without taking anything said to you seriously on the topic of God.
I don't know. You make the extraordinary claim of the existence of a god, please show me your extraordinary proof.
@caissad4 saidYou are telling me that bees died on the Ark, because they had zero plants so they had to die. Did they forget to just bring what the bees needed for life, but did everything else? Where did you get that information, did a fossil tell you?
Here is a fact for you.
What happened to the bees on the ark when they left the ark and had zero plants to derive food from ???
They must have all died. Right !
Are bees extinct ?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidLOL, really someone sees a rock so all possibility of fraud has not disappeared?
It dispels the accusation of fraud.
@kellyjay saidWhy don't you just try leveraging her love for her family against her, as you did with me, to try to concoct a "win" for your argument or whatever it is you are claiming? You can then refuse to talk to her if she asks you not to do that ~ you can blame her for what you said to her. If you go into a big sulk, all her scrutiny and disagreements will disappear.
I doubt that is your goal is to find any proof for God, it seems that your real goal is simply to put down others without taking anything said to you seriously on the topic of God.
2 edits
@indonesia-phil saidWhy do we have to look at the fossils, where are all of the living not quite creatures living today? If mankind is the top of the line newest model, where are all of the other models with just small changes not quite human, going back until the older models all disappear? We should see these types of lifeforms for every life! Getting a very small change within DNA would not automatically kill off all of the lifeforms without it, unless there was some reason for them to die. There isn't a fossil fairy that runs around looking for an advantage in some lifeforms DNA to murder off all the older models so they can be replaced.
And whilst I'm on this...Anyone who says that there is no living evidence for evolution or transitional species must have their eyes (or their mind) closed. Snakes look like other snakes because they share a recent common ancestor, and have evolved their slight differences depending upon their environment. Lizards look like other lizards, ditto the above, there are so ...[text shortened]... if you go back far enough, because all life shares a common beginning. That's evolution for you....
You claim we share 99 percent of our DNA with chimps, where are all of the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999 lifeforms? 1% sounds small unless you are looking at something with very large numbers. Out of a 1000 just 1% is larger than 100, or 10, or 1, but 1% of trillions up trillions it becomes a much larger number and DNA has a very large numbers representing information in it.
3 edits
Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans - along with a vast range of other species.
You know we could also be seeing humans degenerating rather than evolving there.
Bone diseases of sick humans could appear to us today to be pre-human. When actually they might have been sickened and deformed bent over humans.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it. No problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38800987
1 edit
They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are "exquisitely well preserved".
The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and - eventually - to humans.
I'm sorry. I doubt this.
Look, if a frog turns into a human when kissed by a princes, it is a fairy tale.
If a frog turns into a human being taking 50 million years of lucky mutations, well, that's science.
@kellyjay saidYou know very little about me. I seek truth and understanding.
Your rules don't apply to God, extraordinary proof isn't required, many come to know the Lord through the simplest of revelations. Since God is personable it is through a relationship that people get to know Him. I doubt that is your goal is to find any proof for God, it seems that your real goal is simply to put down others without taking anything said to you seriously on the topic of God.
You only seem to seek to confirm your unsubstantiated opinions and dismiss anything which might threaten your superstitions.
What I do know is your god is evil, inconsistent and manmade.
5 edits
While we look into interpreting the meaning of fossils, nobody, but NOBODY should want to be intentionally deceived.
Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, its' difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged fathered dinosaurs were found.
Alan Feduccia of University of North Caralina at Chapel Hill.
Asked what would motivate such fraud, Fedducia replied: "Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit."
Pg. 59, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, Zondervan
FIRST, let's get the fakes out of the way.
@kellyjay saidYou have a unique blend of ignorance and arrogance.
You are telling me that bees died on the Ark, because they had zero plants so they had to die. Did they forget to just bring what the bees needed for life, but did everything else? Where did you get that information, did a fossil tell you?
Try this one : With all the animals of your ark excreting methane gas everyone would be dead in less than a week. Methane gas is poisonous to animals.
Or this : With all the animals which are only found in Australia why has not one fossil or any other evidence of the trek back to Australia ? None at all.