"Creationist are Liars"...? When they Steamroll Darwinian Evolution

[nPeace]

Sure, but being a Jehovah's Witness, you are about as biased as a person can be on the subject. So your "to me..." statements don't carry much weight, do they?

Because you are a Jehovah's Witness. Because you are a Jehovah's Witness.
Is that a song? You seem to like it.
If it makes you happy. keep singing it.
Doesn't matter to me. I know you are wrong.

You see what you want to see imo.
I wonder. Why do you so much want me see what you see, or don't see?
Oh right. Because you don't want to see what I see.

 

[nPeace]

And you could not have picked a worse example than elephant evolution to bring up @nPeace . When it comes to fossils of land based animals large animals fossilize much more easily than small ones. Small mammals rot away very quickly or are just eaten and disappear. An elephant has a large boned body and that is preserved much more often relatively than that of a mouse for example. There have been roughly 185 different extinct species identified in the fossil record. This article only deals with a few of them:

Elephant - Wikipedia

The history of elephants go from this bugger:

all the way to the African elephant.

[GALLERY=media, 8658]Moeritherium_NT_small by nPeace posted Sep 4, 2018 at 8:13 AM[/GALLERY]


Moeritherium ('the beast from Lake Moeris') is an extinct genus of primitive proboscideans. These prehistoric mammals are related to the elephant and, more distantly, the sea cow. They lived during the Eocene epoch.

The Moeritherium species were pig-like animals that lived about 37-35 million years ago, and resembled modern tapirs or pygmy hippopotamuses (however, they are not believed to be closely related to either of those animals).

Whatever.
Doesn't look much different to me (considering the artist filled it out in an odd shape). Looks related actually.

[GALLERY=media, 8657]Asian_African_Tapir_Size by nPeace posted Sep 4, 2018 at 8:07 AM[/GALLERY]

If they are not related and look so alike, why are people making such a big fuss about humans looking as though they are related to apes?
Hairless apes they say.
Those "transitional" fossils do tell the story don't they?

Uh huh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[GALLERY=media, 8658]Moeritherium_NT_small by nPeace posted Sep 4, 2018 at 8:13 AM[/GALLERY]


Moeritherium ('the beast from Lake Moeris') is an extinct genus of primitive proboscideans. These prehistoric mammals are related to the elephant and, more distantly, the sea cow. They lived during the Eocene epoch.

The Moeritherium species were pig-like animals that lived about 37-35 million years ago, and resembled modern tapirs or pygmy hippopotamuses (however, they are not believed to be closely related to either of those animals).

Whatever.
Doesn't look much different to me (considering the artist filled it out in an odd shape). Looks related actually.

[GALLERY=media, 8657]Asian_African_Tapir_Size by nPeace posted Sep 4, 2018 at 8:07 AM[/GALLERY]

If they are not related and look so alike, why are people making such a big fuss about humans looking as though they are related to apes?
Hairless apes they say.
Those "transitional" fossils do tell the story don't they?

Uh huh.

Did you not understand what you quoted and pasted? It only looks like modern day tapirs. Looks like does not mean is. And they may be related.

Your question about humans looking like apes is malformed. People are apes. You are an ape.

A better way to look at species is to analyze their skeletons. When that is done differences become more obvious:

There are many species that are only distantly related that have similar external forms. Hedgehog, porcupine, and echidnas come to mind. Even more telling is DNA, but there are countless species whose DNA is yet to be analyzed.

You really should be asking questions at this point in time. You clearly do not know enough to even begin to refute the theory of evolution.

And yes, transitional fossils make relationships clear. We can see the slow steady changes in them. In fact we can see that for man.

 

[nPeace]

Do the microevolutionary changes just suddenly stop?
How does the microevolution of a species know when to stop, so as to avoid going too far and becoming a new species?

At what point did French become a language different from Latin?
Changes accumulate.

Speculating?
As far as I know, no experiment done with fruit flies has produced fruit bats.
We are free to speculate, but we all know that speculation is not fact.
I'm sure you wouldn't want Christian to do that. I'm so sure of that I don't even have to ask.

Besides, I have seen the sluggish ligers, and tiglons.

I won't speculate about the chances of survival.
The sad truth about animal hybrids

 

[nPeace]

Did you not understand what you quoted and pasted? It only looks like modern day tapirs. Looks like does not mean is. And they may be related.

Your question about humans looking like apes is malformed. People are apes. You are an ape.

A better way to look at species is to analyze their skeletons. When that is done differences become more obvious:

There are many species that are only distantly related that have similar external forms. Hedgehog, porcupine, and echidnas come to mind. Even more telling is DNA, but there are countless species whose DNA is yet to be analyzed.

You really should be asking questions at this point in time. You clearly do not know enough to even begin to refute the theory of evolution.

And yes, transitional fossils make relationships clear. We can see the slow steady changes in them. In fact we can see that for man.

So are they related, or are they not related?
Oh they are not believed to be related, so they may be related?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speculating?
As far as I know, no experiment done with fruit flies has produced fruit bats.
We are free to speculate, but we all know that speculation is not fact.
I'm sure you wouldn't want Christian to do that. I'm so sure of that I don't even have to ask.

Besides, I have seen the sluggish ligers, and tiglons.

I won't speculate about the chances of survival.
The sad truth about animal hybrids

I see that you still have no clue on how evolution works. You can't defeat evolution by using a strawman version of it. Speculation is all that you have. Science has much more than that. There should be an Eleventh Commandment banning falsely claiming that others have one's own flaws.

Once again, why not learn just the basics of science. If you learned the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence you would be a better debater. We would not have to keep prying your foot out of your mouth if you did so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are they related, or are they not related?
Oh they are not believed to be related, so they may be related?

All life is related. We are talking degrees of relationship. Look at humans, all humans are related too. But you are most closely related to your brothers and sisters. Less so with your cousins. Even less say than more distant cousins. If you met a random man on the street it might be all but impossible to figure out have you are related, but there is o doubt that you are.

The tapir is not a close relative to the horse, since it has a more limited fossil history we go by other means and it appears to be more closely related to the horse.

 

[Valjean]

If they are not related and look so alike, why are people making such a big fuss about humans looking as though they are related to apes?
Hairless apes they say.

Lots of animals 'look' alike while being only distantly related. Dolphins look like fish, peccaries look like pigs, bats look like birds. A more accurate gauge would be the fossil progression, anatomical comparison and genetic history. These are what biologists use.

Speculating?
As far as I know, no experiment done with fruit flies has produced fruit bats.
We are free to speculate, but we all know that speculation is not fact.
I'm sure you wouldn't want Christian to do that. I'm so sure of that I don't even have to ask.

I have never seen milk turn to cheese or a field to a forest, but I understand it happens, given more time than I care to invest. Your human attention span is not an impediment in a process with millions of years to work with.

What alternative mechanism of speciation would you propose? Do you really think magic poofing -- a thing never observed, with no known mechanism or supporting evidence, is more reasonable than familiar mechanisms observed every day?

Besides, I have seen the sluggish ligers, and tiglons.

And I've seen a thriving population of coydogs spreading through the Eastern US....

I won't speculate about the chances of survival.
The sad truth about animal hybrids

Hybrids? We're not talking about hybrids. We're talking about natural selection.[/QUOTE]

 

[nPeace]

Lots of animals 'look' alike while being only distantly related. Dolphins look like fish, peccaries look like pigs, bats look like birds. A more accurate gauge would be the fossil progression, anatomical comparison and genetic history. These are what biologists use.
I have never seen milk turn to cheese or a field to a forest, but I understand it happens, given more time than I care to invest. Your human attention span is not an impediment in a process with millions of years to work with.

What alternative mechanism of speciation would you propose? Do you really think magic poofing -- a thing never observed, with no known mechanism or supporting evidence, is more reasonable than familiar mechanisms observed every day?
And I've seen a thriving population of coydogs spreading through the Eastern US....

Hybrids? We're not talking about hybrids. We're talking about natural selection.

Not that kind of likeness, was I referring to.
Does milk turn to cheese? Then that's not a proper comparison.
Using something that has never happened would be more fitting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not that kind of likeness, was I referring to.
Does milk turn to cheese? Then that's not a proper comparison.
Using something that has never happened would be more fitting.

Since evolution has happened it is extremely fitting.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because you are a Jehovah's Witness. Because you are a Jehovah's Witness.
Is that a song? You seem to like it.
If it makes you happy. keep singing it.
Doesn't matter to me. I know you are wrong.

I'm wrong? You're not a Jehovah's Witness? I thought you told me you were "proud" to be one.

Why do you so much want me see what you see, or don't see?

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you can clarify, I'll try and answer.

Oh right. Because you don't want to see what I see.

Again, you're not making much sense.

 

[nPeace]

Since evolution has happened it is extremely fitting.

Yes. We see it at a species level

I'm wrong? You're not a Jehovah's Witness? I thought you told me you were "proud" to be one.


Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you can clarify, I'll try and answer.


Again, you're not making much sense.

No, you are wrong... I'm not biased. I am reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. We see it at a species level

No we directly observe it at the species level. That is macroevolution. We see it at the genus level and above in the fossil record.

You really should try to learn how.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, you are wrong... I'm not biased. I am reasonable.

Huh. Well I guess I owe you an apology. I thought you were a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[nPeace]

I have two questions.

1. Can you please explain how interpreting a fossil record with a handful of hardened bone is objective evidence of anything?

2. Let's look at the 'objective evidence' for evolution, and compare that with 'objective evidence' for God. How do they differ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have two questions.

1. Can you please explain how interpreting a fossil record with a handful of hardened bone is objective evidence of anything?

2. Let's look at the 'objective evidence' for evolution, and compare that with 'objective evidence' for God. How do they differ?

You would first have to learn what is and what is not evidence to answer question number one. I have yet to see a creationist that can honestly approach the concept.

And as to your second question, there is no "objective evidence for God". There are mountains of objective evidence for the theory of evolution. Of course creationists try to avoid learning what is and what is not evidence since they want to keep plausible deniability alive when the repeat the lie of "no evidence for evolution".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey @nPeace ,

Check this out:

The Rock Hyrax: Elephants’ Unexpected Relative

So much for morphological similarities! Common ancestor was 50 Mya!

Lol!

No wonder this isn't a consensus view...not much is among evolutionists, when you take into account individual evolutionary pathways.

What a house of cards, they're building!

 

[nPeace]

Hey @nPeace ,

Check this out:

The Rock Hyrax: Elephants’ Unexpected Relative

So much for morphological similarities! Common ancestor was 50 Mya!

Lol!

No wonder this isn't a consensus view...not much is among evolutionists, when you take into account individual evolutionary pathways.

What a house of cards, they're building!

As I scrolled my mouse down, and the picture came into view.

I will now read it. Maybe DNA revealed the relation. Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

@Hockeycowboy Bro, thanks, but no thanks. I think reading that article just made me sick.
This philosophy just gets more and more absurd, by the minute.
Hopefully, no one will use the argument that we must be related to apes, because we look so similar.

 

[Valjean]

So all the experts are wrong? Everyone's out of step but nPeace?

I don't know how you can read through threads like this and manage to grasp nothing. The evidence just goes right over your head. Apparently it doesn't even register, or, perhaps, you can't put it together.

So what is this objective evidence for god? Do you understand what objective evidence is?