A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[The Hammer]

I hope you are joking because a platypus may look like a duck and a beaver but has nothing in common genetically with either one.

Of course it does. How else do you explain the duck bill and beaver tail?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Of course it does. How else do you explain the duck bill and beaver tail?

I guess the expected answer is evolution.

 

[The Hammer]

I guess the expected answer is evolution.

Idk you tell me

 

[Heyo]

I'm posting this only because I absolutely love how the narrator makes clear just how dumb creationists can really be when confronted with real scientific questions. I know it's (only) 14 minutes long and a lot of members don't like watching anything so interminable (unless it's got cartoon Scotsmen, @Revoltingest), but really, I think it deserves a watch.

It discusses (from both sides of the argument) how kangaroos (and so many other marsupials) got from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And the creationists are absolutely pricesless when they try to make their case.

The obvious answer is, of course, magic. The Noah story is full of magic anyway, so trying to explain something rationally just raises the question "why not explain that with magic also"?

 

[darkskies]

Well, almost all fossils. Fossilization is a rare event. But if there is a major extinction event where a line is wiped out along with anything close to it a fossil from the time of that extinction may not be transitional.

Is it not transitional since it had potential? A transition could have occured.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Is it not transitional since it had potential? A transition could have occured.

Sounds like a lot of "could have, should have, would have" guess work. Science is supposed to deal in facts. Where are the facts in "could have"?

 

[darkskies]

So I think you are saying that science has not seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal. They just assume they existed because their theories do not work without them.

They actually have (look up Palaeopotorous) but it comes down to what you can define as a "kangaroo-style animal". It's usually dealt with in groups and not individual animals because that's how it works. There is no assumption apart from what is most likely regarding the data collected.

 

[darkskies]

Sounds like a lot of "could have, should have, would have" guess work. Science is supposed to deal in facts. Where are the facts in "could have"?

No, there is no doubt that a transition could occur in the animals that were part of an extinction event. My question was whether you can classify their fossils as "transitional" even when a transition did not occur (but could have).

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

They actually have (look up Palaeopotorous) but it comes down to what you can define as a "kangaroo-style animal". It's usually dealt with in groups and not individual animals because that's how it works. There is no assumption apart from what is most likely regarding the data collected.

So the "group" could be kangaroo style animals but the individual animals are not kangaroo style animals. This is starting to sound more like a comedy class than a science class. Let me see, a farmer has a herd of cows but the individual animals are not cows. Yeah, that's good for a few laughs.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No, there is no doubt that a transition could occur in the animals that were part of an extinction event. My question was whether you can classify their fossils as "transitional" even when a transition did not occur (but could have).

Can I say my dog had puppies because she "could have" got pregnant but did not.

 

[darkskies]

So the "group" could be kangaroo style animals but the individual animals are not kangaroo style animals. This is starting to sound more like a comedy class than a science class. Let me see, a farmer has a herd of cows but the individual animals are not cows. Yeah, that's good for a few laughs.

I did not say that at all. I talked about groups because "kangaroo-style" cannot be defined properly.
This is how it is:

Where black is an older macropod and white is a kangaroo.

 

[darkskies]

Can I say my dog had puppies because she "could have" got pregnant but did not.

No but fossilised after millenia she would still be a transitional fossil.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I did not say that at all. I talked about groups because "kangaroo-style" cannot be defined properly.
This is how it is:

Where black is an older macropod and white is a kangaroo.

OK very good. Now I see it very clearly. Science is based on things that "cannot be defined properly". Maybe it is time to stop before you fall in the hole you are digging.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No but fossilised after millenia she would still be a transitional fossil.

So if my dog could be a transitional fossil it seems like anything could be a transitional fossil so it loses its meaning. My dog is not transitional between anything, she is a dog.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I hope you are joking because a platypus may look like a duck and a beaver but has nothing in common genetically with either one.

I thought the Barry White reference might have given me away, but yup...totes joking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They actually have (look up Palaeopotorous) but it comes down to what you can define as a "kangaroo-style animal". It's usually dealt with in groups and not individual animals because that's how it works. There is no assumption apart from what is most likely regarding the data collected.

Procoptodon goliah is an example from fossil records.

 

[darkskies]

OK very good. Now I see it very clearly. Science is based on things that "cannot be defined properly". Maybe it is time to stop before you fall in the hole you are digging.

Science didn't say "kangaroo-style". That was said in hopes that you'd understand better.
It's like you refuse to understand, smh.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So I think you are saying that science has not seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal. They just assume they existed because their theories do not work without them.

Procoptodon goliah is a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal.

 

[darkskies]

So if my dog could be a transitional fossil it seems like anything could be a transitional fossil so it loses its meaning. My dog is not transitional between anything, she is a dog.

How does it lose meaning? How do you know she isn't transitional?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it not transitional since it had potential? A transition could have occured.

I was not exactly clear. No offspring, or nieces or nephews, or near nieces or nephews, or even distant relations means that it is not transitional.