"Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.[1]
This includes aspects of the outward appearance (shape, structure, colour, pattern, size), i.e. external morphology (or eidonomy), as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs, i.e. internal morphology (or anatomy). This is in contrast to physiology, which deals primarily with function. Morphology is a branch of life science dealing with the study of gross structure of an organism or taxon and its component parts." (Wiki)
No morphing?......really?
You have to read what people write to you.
Absolutely nobody who understands and accepts evolution expects to see any creature "morphing" into any other creature.
Which is basically the same as I told you a few posts back.
Species speciate into
subspecies. Species don't speciate into "another kind of creature". That just doesn't happen.
Eukaryotes produce more eukaryotes and subspecies thereof.
Vertebrates produce more vertebrates and subspecies thereof.
Tetrapods produce more tetrapods and subspecies thereof.
Mammals produce more mammals and subspecies thereof.
Primates produce more primates and subspecies thereof.
Homo Sapiens produce more Homo Sapiens and subspecies thereof.
Cats don't produce dogs.
There's no such thing as crockoducks either.
Then please explain how those single-celled microscopic organisms "changed" (morphed) over time into something the size of a three story building....
Gradually, over some 3 billion years, through accumulation of
small changes over generations.
Nobody claims that single celled organisms speciated into a T-rex.
Just like nobody claims that a latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child.
Instead, latin
gradually changed into spanish. Sound by sound, accumulated over generations.
Do you understand what the words "gradual" and "accumulation" mean?
Then perhaps you can explain how that single cell organism just managed to "poof" itself into existence in the first place,
Yea, because it's not like you haven't been told a bazillion times before that evolution only deals with that the processes that existing life is subject to and thus the origins of
biodiversity, and not with the origins of life itself, ha?
Yes, I'm sure this is the first time in your life ever that somebody informed you about that.
and just as accidentally have the inbuilt mechanism to become anything else.....let alone a dinosaur....?
It's not exactly an "inbuilt mechanism". It's rather an inevitable consequence of imperfect replication.
If you have systems that self-replicate with variation and which are in competition over limited resources, then there are only 2 possible outcomes: extinction or evolution.
That's just mathematical / algoritmic fact.
Languages change over time for the exact same reason.
Show us your evidence.....
You've already been shown the evidence. The problem is that your idea of the process is so completely fubar that you don't understand the evidence and/or can't recognise it.
And this is demonstrated with every post you make. Like when you expose your ignorance concerning speciation. When you talk about the things that you think we should see if evolution is true, the things you describe would actually be things that would REFUTE evolution. That's how messed up your understanding of this process is.
Don't you consider that a problem?
Don't you think there is something wrong with your argument if your idea on what would be evidence FOR evolution, would actually be evidence AGAINST it?
I mean, if your understanding of it is THAT warped, honestly, what do you expect from us when you demand to see evidence? It's rather clear that you wouldn't recognise the evidence if and when presented....
It's like you are asking us to prove gravity by showing how hammers would float of into space when we drop them instead of falling to the earth. That's literally an equivalent of your "argument" here.
The kind of speciation event that YOU would want to see to support evolution,
would actually falsify evolution. That's how bloody asanine and fubar your argument / belief / understanding is on the subject.
It's quite ridiculous.
but you already know that there isn't anything real or substantive to back up that scenario.
What I know, is that you wouldn't be able to recognise the real and substantive data that backs up that scenario, not because there is no such evidence, but rather because you have no clue about the scenario.
If you don't understand the process, you're also not going to understand the evidence.
And that ignorance is entirely on you. Because you're the one who's stubborness prevents you from actually learning it properly.
You have only yourself to blame for your ignorance.
It is assumed that it "must have" happened because science needs for that to be true.
The exact opposite is true and you know it.
YOU assume that it DID NOT happen because YOU need it to be FALSE, because YOU are the fundamentalist here with the a priori dogmatic religious belief.
YOU need the bible to be correct (or at least: your interepretation of it).
Science only wants accurate answers. Science has no incentive whatsoever to presume its answers. It only shoots itself in the foot when it does that.
While religion.... religion thrives on the status quo.
When a scientist challenges established science succesfully, he gets a medal.
When a fundamentalist challenges established fundamentalist doctrine, he gets banished, shunned and called "the devil" or whatever.
"Might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion that..."....applies to a Creator too.
No.
No. It's called tentative / provisional language. It's what the intellectually honest do.
.....you have beliefs too
And science has evidence.
. You exercise faith in science
No. I don't need faith when I have evidence.
, even though it can't prove anything that it assumes where macro-evolution is concerned.
False, as already explained in the previous post addressed to you which you seemingly completely ignored, unsurprisingly.
That is the uncomfortable truth, which is why I keep saying it. I will not be bullied into silence....
If anything, I'ld rather "bully" you into becoming educated.
How horrible of me, right? That I would prefer you to be informed on biology....
I'm such an evil evil man.
